14 hours ago, Kumamoto_Ken said:

They did mention that it was reliant on Gawn/Viney centre wins. It was good footage, but they only showed the one example a few times, would have been nice to see a few more examples.

Also mentioned that if the half forwards follow our half backs in to try and keep numbers even that it'd throw their structure/positioning/plans off. 

I'm not sold on this plan, if the opposition half forwards follow our flankers then it creates a nice and open forward line for them should we lose the centre clearance. I'd prefer the wingers to play the same role as the half backs and charge into the middle with forward momentum.

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The difficulty with the "diamond or star pattern" or whatever you want to call it, is that it is good for 30 seconds at the bounce of the ball in the middle. 

It doesn't work when the ball has been moved up the field and a turnover results.  Or as seen multiple times in the St.Kilda game, the play is on the opposite side to the interchange and Saints players were coming off the bench and slipping in behind the defenders un-marked. 

Against the Dogs we saw their mids prepared to run into the open space behind the defenders and how many times did they kick goals from inside the goal square without a Melbourne player in sight?

We saw 18 uncontested marks inside the defensive 50 with St.Kilda, and a good number again against the Dogs. 

I think Bealzebub said in another thread, who also has a baskeball background, you have to be able to transition from zone to man-on-man or even a combination of both. 

Sticking with 1 plan doesn't always work, you must adjust to the oppositions capabilities. 

 

 

Great post whatever thread it's in!

13 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Need a new name.

Half-back double thrust? 

Backend surge?

Ball-less rebound?

Yes.

17 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Can't we keep it simple, the equilateral triangle defence? But who would be the hypotenuese? 

Sorry EH, no hypotenuse on an equilateral triangle!

5 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

you have to be able to transition from zone to man-on-man or even a combination of both.

Especially when you leave a blonde superstar player who wears number 12 (not Colin Sylvia) all on his own to roam free.

16 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I agree with buck_nekkid - we're going to have to avoid the 'diamond' or it will be ad nauseum in a hurry. Need a new name.

Half-back double thrust? Backend surge?

Ball-less rebound?

I like to call it the "Who the hell is on Riewoldt"

Edited May 17, 20169 yr by Forest Demon

I was up at the GC last week for the game and intended to catch up with a player (who I won't name) for a few beers afterwards. Not long after the thumping win I got a text through saying a few other players would be joining us.

However, Jones wanted none of it and told the group they were bound to the hotel and an extra early morning recovery was called. This was on the back of Melbourne's dismal record after a win and turning the focus to next week.

Whilst I was personally disappointed not to "get around the boys" it was pleasing to see a great show of leadership.

 

 

Edited May 17, 20169 yr by PartyBoy

 

21 minutes ago, PartyBoy said:

I was up at the GC last week for the game and intended to catch up with a player (who I won't name) for a few beers afterwards. Not long after the thumping win I got a text through saying a few other players would be joining us.

However, Jones wanted none of it and told the group they were bound to the hotel and an extra early morning recovery was called. This was on the back of Melbourne's dismal record after a win and turning the focus to next week.

Whilst I was personally disappointed not to "get around the boys" it was pleasing to see a great show of leadership.

 

 

There is nothing in that post that eliminates you from actually being Bernie in disguise.

9 hours ago, small but forward said:

Maybe we could try a pyramid scheme against Geelong

You may be onto something, don't those schemes only work when you have more and more people "buying in"?