Was very disappointed that Goody ran with the 8 players behind the ball plan for so long. It worked last week because we had absolute control. It wasn't until 3/4 time that he finally moved it back to man on man in front of the ball and suddenly when we hacked it forward we were able to win the ball.

I mentioned earlier that if we dont win the ball this game plan would be an issue and it only took 1 week for a team to counter it. Having so many behind the play with no run meant we over possessed and couldn't get any solid movement forward. Its a fantastic game plan to capitalise on max or our midfield dominance but it didn't help us today when we were being beaten in centre clearances.

1 hour ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Was very disappointed that Goody ran with the 8 players behind the ball plan for so long. It worked last week because we had absolute control. It wasn't until 3/4 time that he finally moved it back to man on man in front of the ball and suddenly when we hacked it forward we were able to win the ball.

I mentioned earlier that if we dont win the ball this game plan would be an issue and it only took 1 week for a team to counter it. Having so many behind the play with no run meant we over possessed and couldn't get any solid movement forward. Its a fantastic game plan to capitalise on max or our midfield dominance but it didn't help us today when we were being beaten in centre clearances.

agree. Carlton worked out a semi flood inside our 50-70 zone and we had no idea. Our players turnovers were shocking and over possession was deplorable. Against any better opposition, we'd get smashed.

Need to get back to run run run and handball / kick to advantage. 

As soon as 'On the Couch' highlighted this game plan, I knew other teams would immediately work out a way to nullify it. I'm surprised we actually went into today's game attempting it; it would've been smarter to try something unexpected and catch Bolton off guard?

9 hours ago, SaberFang said:

As soon as 'On the Couch' highlighted this game plan, I knew other teams would immediately work out a way to nullify it. I'm surprised we actually went into today's game attempting it; it would've been smarter to try something unexpected and catch Bolton off guard?

I should say i still believe it could work because of the numbers we would have around the ball would be too hard to counter. However, we need to be winning the ball for it to work. Because yesterday we wern't winning the ball we suffered. Max can chalk up another loss to Kreuzer and set himself for the game later in the year.

12 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Was very disappointed that Goody ran with the 8 players behind the ball plan for so long. It worked last week because we had absolute control. It wasn't until 3/4 time that he finally moved it back to man on man in front of the ball and suddenly when we hacked it forward we were able to win the ball.

I mentioned earlier that if we dont win the ball this game plan would be an issue and it only took 1 week for a team to counter it. Having so many behind the play with no run meant we over possessed and couldn't get any solid movement forward. Its a fantastic game plan to capitalise on max or our midfield dominance but it didn't help us today when we were being beaten in centre clearances.

Also, this game plan relies on forwards being able to beat multiple defenders which Weideman and Hogan can't do at the moment.

We always struggle with a spare man in defence and have for at least a decade. I will always prefer to have even numbers all over the ground and back our players in to win one-on-one contests.

 

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Also, this game plan relies on forwards being able to beat multiple defenders which Weideman and Hogan can't do at the moment.

We always struggle with a spare man in defence and have for at least a decade. I will always prefer to have even numbers all over the ground and back our players in to win one-on-one contests.

 

Especially when we are playing a bad side...

Also, finals are won one-on-one.

When the heat is on, these tactics fail because they rely on the minds and focus of football players and they go to water most of the time.

Finals are won in the contests, not on the whiteboard.

9 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Especially when we are playing a bad side...

Also, finals are won one-on-one.

When the heat is on, these tactics fail because they rely on the minds and focus of football players and they go to water most of the time.

Finals are won in the contests, not on the whiteboard.

I think Goodwin will have plans to counter this. Also, if our mids show up and our half forwards bring the required pressure, we'll beat most midfields and be in the game most weeks, finals or not.

16 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Was very disappointed that Goody ran with the 8 players behind the ball plan for so long. It worked last week because we had absolute control. It wasn't until 3/4 time that he finally moved it back to man on man in front of the ball and suddenly when we hacked it forward we were able to win the ball.

I mentioned earlier that if we dont win the ball this game plan would be an issue and it only took 1 week for a team to counter it. Having so many behind the play with no run meant we over possessed and couldn't get any solid movement forward. Its a fantastic game plan to capitalise on max or our midfield dominance but it didn't help us today when we were being beaten in centre clearances.

Running two forwards off the back of the square at the centre bounce is not the same as playing 8 defenders.  We ran one off the back last year and 2 or even 3 this year.  They are in a position to receive heading towards our goal, not away from it as they would be if they ran in from the traditional forward centre square line.  It's a no brainer and its not 8 or 9 in the backline. 

5 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Running two forwards off the back of the square at the centre bounce is not the same as playing 8 defenders.  We ran one off the back last year and 2 or even 3 this year.  They are in a position to receive heading towards our goal, not away from it as they would be if they ran in from the traditional forward centre square line.  It's a no brainer and its not 8 or 9 in the backline. 

I didnt say 8 defenders I said 8 behind the ball. Those 2 players are playing a very attacking role. But as I did say, we cant keep pushing that when we arn't winning the ball, that left 2 lose back for carlton and 2 of our players in no mans land having no effect on the game. It looks great when it works but it wasnt working at any stage yesterday... i just cant work out why it took so long to say "ok its not working today, lets bench it and come back to it when we get control" 

It was a typical MCG swirling breeze but it was heavily in favour of the Punt road end. An extra defender wasn't a bad idea at all to stall momentum in the 3rd quarter. 

The extra man running off the back of the square is a completely different tactic and isn't all that relevant to the majority of the game but it's also something I'd like to use a little less and to try different things. Some times it works because it allows the defenders to get in more aggressive positions (the Diamond) because they don't have to rush in off the square, but if we are winning in the middle then I'd like even numbers.

The other thing I'd trial is a 2nd wingmen on one side of the stoppage. One comes across defensively, the other runs in an attacking position. Gawn hits to the 2 wing side and then they use the overlap. 

16 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Was very disappointed that Goody ran with the 8 players behind the ball plan for so long. It worked last week because we had absolute control. It wasn't until 3/4 time that he finally moved it back to man on man in front of the ball and suddenly when we hacked it forward we were able to win the ball.

I mentioned earlier that if we dont win the ball this game plan would be an issue and it only took 1 week for a team to counter it. Having so many behind the play with no run meant we over possessed and couldn't get any solid movement forward. Its a fantastic game plan to capitalise on max or our midfield dominance but it didn't help us today when we were being beaten in centre clearances.

I thought the opposite. We dominated the first 1/4 (albeit not on the scoreboard) With our forwards behind the ball at setups and running forward to create. 8 players behind the ball was working.

Carlton went man on man to stop our dominance after 1/4 time.

This will happen to us all year. We were good enough against Carlton to just overpower them one on one but I'd like to see us show a bit more.

 

This is not a new idea. From memory Barassi did it on occasion at North in the 1970's with Rantall and others. And maybe even Adelaide also tried it with Andrew McLeod.

It relies on really good kicking. It gets totally stuffed up by poor kicking and poor decision making, just like any other gameplan. 

This gameplan has been around in a very similar format for years in soccer.

Defend and counterattack. The way you break it down is patience and expert delivery. Bombing it in to the striker just means it comes flying back at you on the counterattack.

To be honest I am not sure it can be sustained unless you have a few very good forwards who can get free and of course you have other players who are expert at delivery as mentioned by Maldonboy above. If you just put three defenders around the forty metre line the gameplan suffers.

I don't profess to have an answer but the problems are obvious.

Edited April 3, 20178 yr by Diamond_Jim

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I didnt say 8 defenders I said 8 behind the ball. Those 2 players are playing a very attacking role. But as I did say, we cant keep pushing that when we arn't winning the ball, that left 2 lose back for carlton and 2 of our players in no mans land having no effect on the game. It looks great when it works but it wasnt working at any stage yesterday... i just cant work out why it took so long to say "ok its not working today, lets bench it and come back to it when we get control" 

Yes the issue is that the opposition defensive spares at the bounce can hold back because they don't have to follow the forward into the square and that creates a number mismatch deep in our forward line when we win the clearance.  If they run into the square on autopilot like the Saints did then the ball goes over their heads.  

I'm not a massive fan of the idea and criticised it last year when it rarely worked with one off the back - Max was even palming to the opposite side half the time!

Don't worry about the stoppage set ups and creative stuff, it's fun window dressing really. 7th man back - a valuable tactic to kill time in a quarter or game. It means you have to retain possession and also live with the ball in your back half.

The game plan comes down to attack and defend:

1. Defending - zone: Forward and mids pressure is better so far this year. Defenders are working hard in the zone. Still getting caught out too often in not recognising where the help is coming from and when to close back in to a man on man. Overall though even when accounting for Carlton's impotent forward line I thought it was ok.

2. Attacking structure: We seem very keen to maintain men ahead of the ball and work on a kicking and angle changing game plan to get through or around teams then go in to numbers in the forward line. So many times a player would mark or receive the ball at half back and see Hogan or Weeds 80m away and not leading up. They would be holding ground and the other forwards would be moving and the defender would have to pick a pocket of space to kick in to. With the way the Blues guarded space across half back this was really hard. 

In essence our forwards are playing a zoned forward line as well and I think there has to be a choice. Either the forwards lead up more so they are in play (how many high kicks didn't even get contested by a tall) or they drag back further so there's more space for the mids and a high forward to push in to. Personally I'd like to see more leading up at the ball and an understanding that the other forwards or mids from the fat side will come in behind to be the next option. 

Like everything in footy though it's hard to tell where the problem is. More run from the backline and less dinky handballs and excessive switching and the forwards will naturally move more. In all worked out well in round 1.

What I've liked most about weeks one and two was our ability to stymie both the Saints' and the Blues' rebound. They both play Clarko Footy, which has cut us up in the past, but in the main we have been able to slow down opposition ball movement. 

"They're out the back here" became "We're out the back here."

The other thing I liked was the last minute of yesterday's second quarter. That was a massive laugh.

On 29/03/2017 at 4:42 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Love to see a Melbourne coach called "innovative". When was the last time that happened?

When Dennis Jones didn't know how to use the interchange. 

5 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I should say i still believe it could work because of the numbers we would have around the ball would be too hard to counter. However, we need to be winning the ball for it to work. Because yesterday we wern't winning the ball we suffered. Max can chalk up another loss to Kreuzer and set himself for the game later in the year.

Huh? Max comfortably beat Kreuzer 

3 minutes ago, godees said:

Huh? Max comfortably beat Kreuzer 

Listening to his post match I'm not convinced he agrees. He was pretty modest when rating his game. which isnt very max-like and he was quick to mention that Kreuzer played well. Also he didnt have the influence on the contest he generally likes to have. It's not meant as a big knock on Max he cant dominate every week, but this week he didn't, I'm sure he will be better next week.

He didn't dominate - that may be what he expects from himself these days. He certainly had a greater impact than kreuzer though