40 minutes ago, ILLDieADemon said:

So many easy entries into the forward line today because of loose players in the "zone", it was very annoying to watch.

It was expected what happened last time we played the Saints.

What happen to good old fashion man on man? 

I have been saying this for Eons! But nobody gives me or my theories any credibility whatsoever! I have said it before Fence knows Footy!

Edited July 17, 20169 yr by picket fence

I was metres away from the boundary today, and the defence were out of position endlessly.  We will not play finals with unskilled players in defence.  Sorry folks it's a pipe dream unless we get rebounding skilled defenders who can read the play.  Apologies to Nev Jetta who plays his heart out. As for Rawlings...I've lost confidence

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

See ya.. Take ya stupid defence zone or whatever you call it and shut the door behind you.

lol

Sometimes they got it in quick but sometimes we were just flat out of position. If you're going to play a zone you really need to be switched on 

The trouble with such a RIGID zone defence is that it allows half-intelligent forwards (and Riewoldt i& Membery are no more than half-intelligent) to choose which defender's zone they lead towards. 

Seems a strange theory that defenders are supposed to zone when their opponents have the ball, while forwards are supposed to man-up to create forward pressure.

'dazzle', you're better than this.

Only 2 senior players in the defence, we then look at White, OMac, Hunt, Wagner...total games would be lucky at 50.

A game plan implemented by Goody.

Hardly Rawlings fault, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a change at the end of season.

What's the point of blaming Rawlings. He is working under the senior coach and maybe excellent at relaying whatever instructions are given. 

Blame the players for sloppy skills

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What's the point of blaming Rawlings. He is working under the senior coach and maybe excellent at relaying whatever instructions are given. 

Blame the players for sloppy skills

Don't blame the line coaches for what happened yesterday. If anyone, blame Roos in the box, Jones on the field and Viney's 21 teammates.

13 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What's the point of blaming Rawlings. He is working under the senior coach and maybe excellent at relaying whatever instructions are given. 

Blame the players for sloppy skills

Surely it's beholden upon the line coaches to keep those in their charge in check. We are all over the shop. Someone is to be accountable. This case it's Rawlings. 

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Surely it's beholden upon the line coaches to keep those in their charge in check. We are all over the shop. Someone is to be accountable. This case it's Rawlings. 

Nope. In the first Quarter yesterday we were playing good fast footy. Then the players got lazy

it got too hard

Too often players are not held accountable at the MFC. Easy $$$$

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Having a diamond defence or whatever, will only work if its executed correctly. If the playing group is unable to carry it out, why have it?

Sometimes we play as if our ego is writing checks that our body can't cash.

 

 

I find it interesting that Rawlings is the only surviving coach from previous administrations. He must have done something right.

Our defence was rock solid the last couple of years, and got us through some tough times. Then we lost Frawley, Dunn and Garland are struggling, and we have changed the way we play this year from defence first, to an attacking mindset. Put all this together, throw in key injuries to Salem, Lumumba plus Melksham being ruled out of play, add some really inexperienced players in Hunt (who has been excellent mind you), Wagner, OMac and Frost, and you get a defence that is struggling.

This is a new defence, and frankly it worries me. Not enough brute strength, not enough solid one on one defenders, only one experienced tall, the best user of the ball has a thyroid issue, and the rest have played 10 games together. It's little wonder we're chasing Hurley and Hibberd, when Jetta is our most in-form defender. Frawley's loss has been massive, and we have failed to cover that loss.

 

Edited July 18, 20169 yr by Jaded

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Nope. In the first Quarter yesterday we were playing good fast footy. Then the players got lazy

it got too hard

Too often players are not held accountable at the MFC. Easy $$$$

It's the coaches job to make them accountable, to highlight the shortcomings to remind players of the role and give a rev up where needed. 

Sunday seemed a fail in that regards

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

It's the coaches job to make them accountable, to highlight the shortcomings to remind players of the role and give a rev up where needed. 

Sunday seemed a fail in that regards

The coaches can only give instructions and advice

The players are the only ones who can implement change. 

If they are lazy nothing changes. 

18 hours ago, ILLDieADemon said:

Maybe it's Goodwins idea?

Almost certainly an idea from Goodwin and also the Jennings the strategy coach we got from the Dogs/Essendon. I expect those 2 will drive our game plan over the years and that they would be behind the idea to get Melksham and Hibberd. 

We need some experienced players who can read the play, position themselves accordingly and know when to leave their men and when to play tighter. 

4 kids - Hunt, Wagner, White, Oscar in the one backline is always going to be an issue.

But I'll stick with my original point in that if Rawling's didn't recognise where the game was going, how to get there and that we needed new players I'm not sure he should stay for the next evolution of our backline.

19 hours ago, ILLDieADemon said:

Maybe it's Goodwins idea?

Craig Jennings spoke at the NSW Demons pre game function before the Swans game and stated that the Diamond Defence was his idea. Also said that it had already moved on a bit since the media identified it.

 

All this angst over a defence that has conceded, I think, one point more on average each week than last year?

Here's the games played totals for the back 6 defence for each team, as they were selected:

St Kilda:

HB 16 Jack Newnes 19 Sam Gilbert 11 Leigh Montagna -85/173/265=523
FB 14 Jarryn Geary 24 Sean Dempster 17 Dylan Roberton -136/216/96=448
Total Games Experience-971

Melbourne:

HB 29 Jayden Hunt 28 Oscar McDonald 45 Matt Jones  -13/11/58=82
FB 42 Josh Wagner 25 Tom McDonald 39 Neville Jetta -12/98/88=198
Total Games Experience-280

Until these number of games played gets up a lot higher, there are going to be plenty of times our defence falls apart simply due to lack of experience.

25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The coaches can only give instructions and advice

The players are the only ones who can implement change. 

If they are lazy nothing changes. 

I've been banging on about this since the Brian Royal days - whilst the coaches can take some responsibility at the end of the day it is the players responsibility. Whether they are inexperienced or not skilled enough or plain just work hard enough - the coaches can't get the pill and kick it for them.

Just now, nutbean said:

I've been banging on about this since the Brian Royal days - whilst the coaches can take some responsibility at the end of the day it is the players responsibility. Whether they are inexperienced or not skilled enough or plain just work hard enough - the coaches can't get the pill and kick it for them.

We have employed Coach Killers for years

Salary Cap makes sure of that

19 hours ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

Oh and it wasn't the defence's fault again. It was the lack of midfield pressure, as is always the case. As someone who still plays footy (?), you'd know this, Dazzle. 

Yep, same as our loss against Port.

I also noted that we didn't institute the "Diamond Defence" once yesterday, not as far as I could tell anyway. We were man on man back there at every centre bounce.

1 hour ago, Spirit of 26 said:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Having a diamond defence or whatever, will only work if its executed correctly. If the playing group is unable to carry it out, why have it?

Sometimes we play as if our ego is writing checks that our body can't cash.

See my last post - we didn't use the Diamond Defence once yesterday from what I saw.

22 minutes ago, DemonDave said:

All this angst over a defence that has conceded, I think, one point more on average each week than last year?

Two points: (1) we are meant to be improving the team, not making it worse, at this stage of our development, and (2) it is not the number of goals, it is the manner in which they are conceded. As we saw yesterday, you have players like Viney and Watts busting their backsides to keep us in the game, and then you have soft goals conceded down the other end. It absolutely kills the confidence and any momentum we were building..

22 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

See ya.. Take ya stupid defence zone or whatever you call it and shut the door behind you.

We have a defence "featuring" effectively 4 first year kids (O Mac, White, Magner, Hunt), and it's the coach's fault?

Seriously?

Some of the posts/threads here at the moment are beyond belief.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yep, same as our loss against Port.

I also noted that we didn't institute the "Diamond Defence" once yesterday, not as far as I could tell anyway. We were man on man back there at every centre bounce.

We just used our half forwards as half backs and played less forwards. At most bounces I noticed, but no diamond. Etihad is too small for the diamond to work. You could play a triangle with three players, otherwise you'd get caught out on the outside too much.

Edited July 18, 20169 yr by AdamFphlebeb

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

We have a defence "featuring" effectively 4 first year kids (O Mac, White, Magner, Hunt), and it's the coach's fault?

Seriously?

Some of the posts/threads here at the moment are beyond belief.

If it's not the coach's fault then who's is it? 

All our experianced players who should be getting a game are not up to it. Therefore we have to play the kids. Why are the experianced players not up to it?