So many good posts on this thread it's impossible to quote them all.

The most important point is that this is above all a work in progress. I think that's why, for the time being, we're playing an extreme form of it.

To work well under pressure, it needs 6 out of 6 defenders (and however many mids) to be in the right position and to respond in the right way. If one out of the 6 is out of position, then the flood gates open.

As it stands, we're trying to get a bunch of kids (Hunt, Wagner, Salem, O-Mac etc) to learn it within their first 30 (or in some cases 10) games. Plus a bunch of seasoned players (Lumumba, Dunn, Garland, Grimes, etc) to adjust to a plan that's almost the complete opposite of what they've done for years.

I've left out Jetta, Vince & T-Mac because they're the ones who at this stage are anywhere near getting it right. That leaves a helluva lot of holes.

And we need more talls - the problem for T-Mac is that he has to get to the drop zone of every ball that's bombed in, because he's the only one that can contest against a tall forward. The Dogs knew this, and when the ball comes in long & high, it's easy for them to work out where he is (because he's the only one who's going to make a contest) and impede him to make sure he doesn't get to the drop.

And it only looks bad when we're the "hunted" - when other teams have done their homework on us and worked out specifically how to beat it, and are coached to play in that fashion. We can't fly under the radar any more.

But when we do eventually get it right, it will work very well indeed and we'll be an exhilarating team to watch, and very hard to stop.

Diamond defence of topaz tokenism, good when it works. Apologies to Mr Tilbrook.

54 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Because Isaac Weetra could've kicked 5 in the same position. He did zero work for the goals and could've been replaced by anyone and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

The scoreboard flattered us, this was a 10 goal loss. 

It came down to the midfield, as it always does.

LT interested to know why you think that the scoreboard flattered us? I think we'd all admit the Dogs were the better side but they didn't kick 15 goals 24.  They kicked accurately. 

They weren't at their best, we didn't play at our best either.  There were at least 5 additional goals that we should have kicked barring dodgy kicking or brain fades or little fumble.  The dogs equally fluffed a number of chances.

I think 5 goals was a pretty fair result.

well it may well be a Diamond but its rough and unpolished. The players obviously havent got all facets covered.

The pont that concerns me most is it only has any chance against a lesser or slower team. Once a team  solves the riddle we split wide open

Why on any day this is happening would you persist. That borders on stupidity

57 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Because Isaac Weetra could've kicked 5 in the same position. He did zero work for the goals and could've been replaced by anyone and the outcome wouldn't have changed.

The scoreboard flattered us, this was a 10 goal loss. 

It came down to the midfield, as it always does.

I'm interested in this thing about "the-scoreboard-flattered-us". I totally agree. And you could say that about all our losses this year, as well as our win against GWS.

So excluding the games that were relatively easy wins, in 5 games out of 5 "the-scoreboard-flattered-us".

How many times does this happen before we start to think that maybe it's not a co-incidence?

Could there be something about our game style that causes "the-scoreboard-flattered-us" when we lose?

well it may well be a Diamond but its rough and unpolished. The players obviously havent got all facets covered.

The pont that concerns me most is it only has any chance against a lesser or slower team. Once a team  solves the riddle we split wide open

Why on any day this is happening would you persist. That borders on stupidity

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

well it may well be a Diamond but its rough and unpolished. The players obviously havent got all facets covered.

The pont that concerns me most is it only has any chance against a lesser or slower team. Once a team  solves the riddle we split wide open

Why on any day this is happening would you persist. That borders on stupidity

why? because they need to learn how to play it against a team who is playing well. Its not good only practacing against teams like gold coast,collingwood, richmond etc because it was always gonna work against them. We will have to wear some cheap goals and lots of them against better sides. If we slowly learn how to give up a cheap goal then kick 2 goals ourselves i think we will be happy.

11 minutes ago, Akum said:

I'm interested in this thing about "the-scoreboard-flattered-us". I totally agree. And you could say that about all our losses this year, as well as our win against GWS.

So excluding the games that were relatively easy wins, in 5 games out of 5 "the-scoreboard-flattered-us".

How many times does this happen before we start to think that maybe it's not a co-incidence?

Could there be something about our game style that causes "the-scoreboard-flattered-us" when we lose?

A similar thing to the last year or so when we were constantly 'lucky' by way of opposition inaccuracy.

14 minutes ago, Akum said:

I'm interested in this thing about "the-scoreboard-flattered-us". I totally agree. And you could say that about all our losses this year, as well as our win against GWS.

So excluding the games that were relatively easy wins, in 5 games out of 5 "the-scoreboard-flattered-us".

How many times does this happen before we start to think that maybe it's not a co-incidence?

Could there be something about our game style that causes "the-scoreboard-flattered-us" when we lose?

The "scoreboard flattered us" response rates up there with the ever popular "if only XXX had played this week" but both of these get trumped by the king of  rationalising quotes  - " if my sister had balls she'd be my brother"

Just now, Skuit said:

A similar thing to the last year or so when we were constantly 'lucky' by way of opposition inaccuracy.

Looking at other teams average accuracy i dont think its "luck" Most teams are kicking inaccuratly, we are the only team in the comp to be above 50% goal accuracy in all 8 games. That sounds more like good work on our part than it is just dumb luck. I admit missed set shots from straight infront is a bit of luck, but forcing them wide indicates we are pretty good at making opposition take difficult shots and we are good at getting in the position to take easier shots ourselves.

3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

A similar thing to the last year or so when we were constantly 'lucky' by way of opposition inaccuracy.

And the inaccuracy was not a thing of luck at all - We couldn't attack last year but defensively we guarded the corridor quite well and that meant that teams were taking shots from out wide where the % of success is obviously lower. 

36 minutes ago, Akum said:

And we need more talls - the problem for T-Mac is that he has to get to the drop zone of every ball that's bombed in, because he's the only one that can contest against a tall forward. The Dogs knew this, and when the ball comes in long & high, it's easy for them to work out where he is (because he's the only one who's going to make a contest) and impede him to make sure he doesn't get to the drop.

Frost is no-brainer for tall back role IMO - his closing speed is incredible and he has the size to spoil anyone.  His kicking is even more dodgy than TMacs - that's the downside - the opposition will let him have it in his hands deep.

Free kick Hawthorn.

I am a little nervous at this Diamond Zone, but it is obvious the whole club has bought into it because there is no Plan B. 

Tactics are not changing throughout games. We need A Grade Mids (extractors)

Ollie Wines would have been perfect....aah well Thanks Mark Neeld...

45 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Looking at other teams average accuracy i dont think its "luck" Most teams are kicking inaccuratly, we are the only team in the comp to be above 50% goal accuracy in all 8 games. That sounds more like good work on our part than it is just dumb luck. I admit missed set shots from straight infront is a bit of luck, but forcing them wide indicates we are pretty good at making opposition take difficult shots and we are good at getting in the position to take easier shots ourselves.

 

44 minutes ago, nutbean said:

And the inaccuracy was not a thing of luck at all - We couldn't attack last year but defensively we guarded the corridor quite well and that meant that teams were taking shots from out wide where the % of success is obviously lower. 

It's actually a pertinent discussion in this thread. Whereas we were previously forcing teams wider and out of position in defence - notable in the high inaccuracy against - we're now I think the highest team scored against as a percentage of inside 50s. How many goals have we given up from the goal-square or thereabouts this year?

And it leads back to the King on Goodwin game-plan thing. I find it difficult to imagine Roos would be happy to implement such a radically contrary high-risk attacking tactic at the behest of Goody alone and after two years of pushing dour defence and seemingly sideways chipping. The MFC has gone the quiet tank, masked by perceptions of Paul Roos. He stemmed the bleeding - blowouts, memberships, culture - acquired the cattle (inc. Goodwin), and flicked the switch. 

 

2 minutes ago, Skuit said:

 

It's actually a pertinent discussion in this thread. Whereas we were previously forcing teams wider and out of position in defence - notable in the high inaccuracy against - we're now I think the highest team scored against as a percentage of inside 50s. How many goals have we given up from the goal-square or thereabouts this year?

And it leads back to the King on Goodwin game-plan thing. I find it difficult to imagine Roos would be happy to implement such a radically contrary high-risk attacking tactic at the behest of Goody alone and after two years of pushing dour defence and seemingly sideways chipping. The MFC has gone the quiet tank, masked by perceptions of Paul Roos. He stemmed the bleeding - blowouts, memberships, culture - acquired the cattle (inc. Goodwin), and flicked the switch. 

 

A heap of goals !

The problem with the diamond is not so much if we lose the tap but when we push forward hard and turn the ball over.

I don't recall us getting killed from the centre square bounces - but when we push up and lose the ball - mark it down as an easy goal against us.

I have a question. Does anyone know whether we set up like this every centre bounce? There seems to be a poster concern that it's 'no plan B'. In on the couch last night they only showed one example, multiple times. Do we always setup like this? Apologies if this has been asked/answered. I'm reading on my shyte phone at the airport waiting on a flight to Perth. Promise to ask my cabbie what he/she knows about Hogan's return.

No wonder Roosy tore strips off Petracca over Summer. A fit and firing Trac would have helped get this Zone cement itself. 

Fcuking Slam Dunks. What an absolute Clown to be doing that. 

He must have been told he was a ley ingredient. 

27 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No wonder Roosy tore strips off Petracca over Summer. A fit and firing Trac would have helped get this Zone cement itself. 

Fcuking Slam Dunks. What an absolute Clown to be doing that. 

He must have been told he was a ley ingredient. 

Why would you say that  - of course the whole team is important to a game plan but the key ingredients is the half back flankers pushing into the square like mad men and being reliant on Gawny getting first hand on the ball. 

If you watch the Jones interview he commented that it is relatively new thing - a couple of matches old.

As a player who was always going to be predominantly a half forward flanker with a run or two in the middle he was never going to be a key ingredient to a diamond defense. 

6 hours ago, Peter Griffen said:

All depends on Max, if we lose out of the middle we're going to get scored against heavily, if we win it's going to allow us to score heavily from clearance. 

i like the idea but i do think we need a plan B because while it allows us to have the patches where we kick 5-6 goals quickly, it allows the opposition to do the same at times.

The Mids are the key.

A few times on Sunday they hesitated as to who was picking up who. The ball was coming down too quick and easily.

Is it a coincidence Tommy Mac, Dunne and Garland appear less effective this year.

Jury is out on the Zone. High risk/High reward

 

 

7 hours ago, Peter Griffen said:

All depends on Max, if we lose out of the middle we're going to get scored against heavily, if we win it's going to allow us to score heavily from clearance. 

i like the idea but i do think we need a plan B because while it allows us to have the patches where we kick 5-6 goals quickly, it allows the opposition to do the same at times.

Completely agree with this, mate, but I just love that we're trying new things here. When was the last time a Melbourne coach was truly innovative? I can't recall. We've seen guys like Clarkson come in and completely revolutionise the game, even Roos himself (with Ross Lyon's help).

We need a Plan B, but I reckon that's going to be layered as time goes on. We're only just learning to implement this new defence. It's leaky and it's hit and miss, but once we get it right, it'll be a powerful weapon that we can use more often than not. That's when we'll also need a good Plan B.

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

 The MFC has gone the quiet tank, masked by perceptions of Paul Roos. He stemmed the bleeding - blowouts, memberships, culture - acquired the cattle (inc. Goodwin), and flicked the switch. 

Ever since it became apparent Roos was coaching to defend while stressing results were not about win-loss, it has puzzled me that no one in the media has called it tanking.

6 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

Ever since it became apparent Roos was coaching to defend while stressing results were not about win-loss, it has puzzled me that no one in the media has called it tanking.

been there....done that  ...oops 

All comes down to winning the contested ball, almost every game any team looses this is the difference. Getting 2 extra players round the ball by leaving 2 of their fwds alone is a short cut too this until we are good enough to go 1 on 1 round the packs

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

How exactly does someone kicking 5 goals not impact a game ?

We lost by how much again ?

The same as someone kicks 1 g  4 b and 1 oob

does not cost us a game.