9 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

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

does not cost us a game.

Don't think I didn't see what you did there Mr Rubble 

Looks simplistic this diamond setup and only works if we win substantially more clearance than the opposition. Logic would say the ball mostly goes left or right after a clearance before going forwards. Should a midfielder left dry on the fat side push back for extra coverage in case we lose the clearance because they likely wont get near the fall of the ball any way  if the clearance is won?

We came unstuck because the dogs sat back and let us get first touch on clearance then created too much pressure but we also helped them out by not being smart and fighting over the pill.

They always had that extra hand to receive because our extra man was fighting over the extraction with a teammate. Once we get a little smarter/mature with how we play the diamond setplay wil be very, very good

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

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. 

He will spend time in the midfield

as i said no wonder Roosy ripped into him. 

Hey can some one post the video for me, overseas people can't view the content

Nice theory.

Works well against Gold Coast .

Not so good against teams that can play.

1 minute ago, Biffen said:

Nice theory.

Works well against Gold Coast .

Not so good against teams that can play.

Hahahaha!!

6 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Something else that occurs to me was , and I acknowledge its a different sport Bball , was that going into many games we knew we had to be wary of this bloke or another..or whatever, i.e a certain style press of something that was the forte of the team we played. We would have been foolhardy to stick regimentally to one method only.

 

By all means teach and deploy various style of attack or defending but they are only elements,, arrows to a quiver as it were. 

How many times have we watched at a game , even at the center bounce  and it can depend simply on which way it favours. Sometimes you can see the disaster even before it plays out..

 

funny game footy at times

I think Roos simplified the game plan. If we implement too much variety - it can lead to confusion. The Diamond defense is simple, both to implement and carry out. I think our variety is for our mids to play two way accountable footy (basic one on one), while our defense keeps a simple structure (Diamond). I think that is our answer as well, for our mids to know our broader structures, but to largely play within themselves. Everything for MFC depends on the midfields ability to clear the footy. When we dont do that well, our basic structures will be exposed IMO. The more our mids develop, the less exposed we will be, the more attacking we will be, and the more exposed the opposition will be.

6 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Something else that occurs to me was , and I acknowledge its a different sport Bball , was that going into many games we knew we had to be wary of this bloke or another..or whatever, i.e a certain style press of something that was the forte of the team we played. We would have been foolhardy to stick regimentally to one method only.

 

By all means teach and deploy various style of attack or defending but they are only elements,, arrows to a quiver as it were. 

How many times have we watched at a game , even at the center bounce  and it can depend simply on which way it favours. Sometimes you can see the disaster even before it plays out..

 

funny game footy at times

I think Roos simplified the game plan. If we implement too much variety - it can lead to confusion. The Diamond defense is simple, both to implement and carry out. I think our variety is for our mids to play two way accountable footy (basic one on one), while our defense keeps a simple structure (Diamond). I think that is our answer as well, for our mids to know our broader structures, but to largely play within themselves. Everything for MFC depends on the midfields ability to clear the footy. When we dont do that well, our basic structures will be exposed IMO. The more our mids develop, the less exposed we will be, the more attacking we will be, and the more exposed the opposition will be.

Why is it professional sporting players around the world can learn complex patterns and plans but we at Melbourne can only manage something if its simple, surely not.

When we develop holograms of our defenders standing right next their opponents I think we could try the diamond again.

7 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

Yeah he kicked 5 goals but had zero impact on the game as evidenced by the fact neither coach game him a single vote out of the 10 despite the 5 goals. Just stood there and made the most of his teammates work. He's so overrated Stringer, crumbled the second he has any pressure on him and kicks a bag in did matches when no one is near him.

You have to be kidding me. Overrated, seriously. This boy is sheer class, one of the classiest young players i have ever seen. I would trade anyone of our players to have him in our jumper. Oh well, I must be on an entirely different planet.

17 minutes ago, ThreeOneSix said:

I think Roos simplified the game plan. If we implement too much variety - it can lead to confusion. The Diamond defense is simple, both to implement and carry out. I think our variety is for our mids to play two way accountable footy (basic one on one), while our defense keeps a simple structure (Diamond). I think that is our answer as well, for our mids to know our broader structures, but to largely play within themselves. Everything for MFC depends on the midfields ability to clear the footy. When we dont do that well, our basic structures will be exposed IMO. The more our mids develop, the less exposed we will be, the more attacking we will be, and the more exposed the opposition will be.

for all the analysis, we lost the game. our game plan was flawed on the day. we were completely carved up because of the game plan and/or our inability to adapt. and that will happen time and time again against a skilled side, that can run and spread, and that has great handball and kicking skills. we were never to going to match the dogs with an offensive attacking game plan. blind freddy could work that out.

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

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

We lost by how much again ?

Same way Hogan kicked 7 and had no impact.

 

1 hour ago, Rocknroll said:

Hey can some one post the video for me, overseas people can't view the content

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/afl/on-the-couch/the-demons-diamond-defence!523079

27 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

Same way Hogan kicked 7 and had no impact.

 

Hogan certainly made an impact....its just that insufficient others did likelwise

Screwed over by the diamond.
Riewoldt just kept running to Neville Jetta while Dunn and TMac seemed more worried that the diamond had a nice shape.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

Screwed over by the diamond.
Riewoldt just kept running to Neville Jetta while Dunn and TMac seemed more worried that the diamond had a nice shape.

 

 

It often looks like that, like a dance

I would like to ask Mahoney if he knew we were going to adopt these type of offensive structures in Defence when he signed Garland for 3 years. 

No star Garland, but a solid, man on man defender who has proven he can play tight and negate talls & smalls.  An athletic, quick and intercepting defender he will never be.  This type of defence requires more Easton Wood / Bob Murphy than it does Col Garland / Mick Gayfer.  

 

 

7 hours 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

It also relies heavily on forward pressure, locking the ball in to our forward 50 and repeated sprints up and down the ground. Against the Dogs we'd win the clearance, hoof it forward and if it wasn't marked the Dogs got numbers around to win the ball, get it into space and swing it back to their forward line with speed. Meanwhile our players were caught in no man's land watching the ball go back over their heads. 

6 hours ago, nutbean said:

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.

Yep, if we lose the hitout we should have numbers around the ball to force a quick kick forward under pressure. This will either go to the left or right side where we have two "outriders" to get to the drop of the ball first or straight down the middle where all four players will converge to create a pack making it impossible for an opposition player to mark the ball.

Even if the opposition win an easy clearance hopefully our flankers will be pushing up to prevent a shot from 50 or an easy hit up to a leading forward. 

7 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

I would like to ask Mahoney if he knew we were going to adopt these type of offensive structures in Defence when he signed Garland for 3 years. 

No star Garland, but a solid, man on man defender who has proven he can play tight and negate talls & smalls.  An athletic, quick and intercepting defender he will never be.  This type of defence requires more Easton Wood / Bob Murphy than it does Col Garland / Mick Gayfer.  

 

 

Interesting discussion. Do you recruit or keep players that can play offensively and ditch players who are man on man defenders or keep both types of players and have a balance to ensure that you can play offensively and defensively as the circumstances dictate. The answer seems obvious but I am probably missing something or view footy to simply or am to old or out of touch to understand that footy is now a very complicated game that requires a much higher intelligence than mine to understand.

I just think that every side has at least 1 forward that you have to lock down on and not give him a bloody inch!!!

Garland can be that guy for most forwards in the 180 - 195 cm range.  On Sunday he would have been perfect to assign ALL DAY to Stringer.  Gee the Forwards who used to have to put up with Craig Kelly's pinching & scratching all day must be thinking how they would have loved this Diamond. 

22 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

I just think that every side has at least 1 forward that you have to lock down on and not give him a bloody inch!!!

Garland can be that guy for most forwards in the 180 - 195 cm range.  On Sunday he would have been perfect to assign ALL DAY to Stringer.  Gee the Forwards who used to have to put up with Craig Kelly's pinching & scratching all day must be thinking how they would have loved this Diamond. 

Exactly

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It also relies heavily on forward pressure, locking the ball in to our forward 50 and repeated sprints up and down the ground. Against the Dogs we'd win the clearance, hoof it forward and if it wasn't marked the Dogs got numbers around to win the ball, get it into space and swing it back to their forward line with speed. Meanwhile our players were caught in no man's land watching the ball go back over their heads. 

What I got sick of seeing is the predictability coming out of defence. We're certainly not the only team that does this, but our fall back plan is always to kick it on the head of Gawn or another KPP. The Dogs anticipated this and had numbers front and centre every time. I lost count of how many times this happened. If they didn't win the crumb, they'd press the Melbourne players until they turned it over. The Dogs players were then very clean and efficient by hand to set up their next attack.

Edited May 17, 20169 yr by AdamFarr