Etihad Specialists

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

Can not go wrong at our new graveyard of Hell for other teams.

[Wolfgang219 73]

I actually think this is a big issue. 

 

Given Goodwin belief in his ‘brand/game plan’ I wonder if he has changed the structures to suit a ground like eithad (he came from Essendon which plays predominantly at Eithad) rather than MCG. 

 

Given the finals are played at the MCG this can be an issue. 

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

I hope not but we couldnt buy a win for a decade their.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,248]

Demons play better at Etihad than MCG.

[Demon Disciple 12,141]

good thing we play there next week too. If we pull off another win, maybe we can build up some confidence and really get into our season

[Dee man 303]

Anyone know who the Gosch's paddock/Casey Fields dimensions compare to MCG/Etihad Stadium?

[SFebes 4,884]

8 hours ago, Dee man said:

Anyone know who the Gosch's paddock/Casey Fields dimensions compare to MCG/Etihad Stadium?

Doesn’t seem to affect Collingwood?

[monoccular 17,431]

11 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

I hope not but we couldnt buy a win for a decade their.

And we can’t buy a win at the G so far this year ?

[Deestroy All 14,266]

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

And we can’t buy a win at the G so far this year ?

I hope we didn’t buy it, but we did beat the Kangaroos there. 

[Lucifers Hero 39,819]

17 hours ago, Wolfgang219 said:

I actually think this is a big issue.

Given Goodwin belief in his ‘brand/game plan’ I wonder if he has changed the structures to suit a ground like eithad (he came from Essendon which plays predominantly at Eithad) rather than MCG.

Given the finals are played at the MCG this can be an issue. 

A few weeks ago I posted these comments in another thread:

I question whether the aggressive zone (or any zone) is suited to the width of the MCG.  It is 12 to 30 meters wider than other major AFL ovals. This makes it too easy for opp to get the ball to the outside and out the back. Of the 15 games we have played at the G under Goodwin we have won only 7:  In 2017 - Carlton (x2), Coll, Saints, Power, Lions.  In 2018 - North.

Most teams have pared back their use of zones.  Even the Eagles tempered their 'web' after they were demolished in the GF by Hawthorn, a few years ago. We need a game plan that will win on the G! 

Including ANZAC Eve it is 7 wins from 16 MCG games. 

Richmond and Hawthorn are brilliant at defending the G.  Geelong is getting better at it.  Collingwood is also learning (see Qtr 1, rnd 23 2017?) 

One would like to think our coaches are aware of our performance on different grounds.  But in the presser after the Rich game Goodwin was asked if there was a reason we had lost the 4 or 5 of the last 6 games at the G.  He said it was a surprise statistic for him.  Not sure what to make of his surprise.

Hopefully, we can develop a core plan that plays to our teams strengths and is tweaked for the ground each week as each has peculiarities.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Tony Tea 2,809]

If Etihad is smaller than the MCG, it is possible that Goodwin's high press would work better in the Dome's smaller area.

[Lucifers Hero 39,819]

On 4/30/2018 at 9:48 AM, Tony Tea said:

If Etihad is smaller than the MCG, it is possible that Goodwin's high press would work better in the Dome's smaller area.

Definitely, as shown by our excellent record there since Goodwin took over.  It also helps that the roof is closed so we play in the dry with no wind.  But we only play a couple of games a year at Etihad. As the G is our home ground and the big stage that is where we need to win games. 

For those that are interested here is a list of dimensions of grounds used for AFL games. 

 

Yesterday's it looked like the 'aggressive zone' was modified in the second half and Ess found it much harder to switch play so a less 'aggressive zone' can work anywhere.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[sisso 2,580]

We seem to get lost mucking around on the wings of the wider MCG too much, allowing the opposition to drop back and intercept mark all day long (see Geelong round 1). Yesterday in the second half we noticeably went much more direct instead of playing wide. Need to attack through the corridor at the MCG more and spend less time farting about on the member's wing! 

[dl4e 5,851]

I look at the title of this thread and remember yesterdays game and shake my head. We played poorly and the second half was a demonstration of how bad essenscum were.

[pewpewpew 738]

I never thought I'd say this but I love that ground. More games under the dome please.

[deelusions from afar 1,810]

9 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

A few weeks ago I posted these comments in another thread:

I question whether the aggressive zone (or any zone) is suited to the width of the MCG.  It is 12 to 30 meters wider than other major AFL ovals. This makes it too easy for opp to get the ball to the outside and out the back. Of the 15 games we have played at the G under Goodwin we have won only 7:  In 2017 - Carlton (x2), Coll, Saints, Power, Lions.  In 2018 - North.

Most teams have pared back their use of zones.  Even the Eagles tempered their 'web' after they were demolished in the GF by Hawthorn, a few years ago. We need a game plan that will win on the G! 

Including ANZAC Eve it is 7 wins from 16 MCG games. 

Richmond and Hawthorn are brilliant at defending the G.  Geelong is getting better at it.  Collingwood is also learning (see Qtr 1, rnd 23 2017?) 

One would like to think our coaches are aware of our performance on different grounds.  But in the presser after the Rich game Goodwin was asked if there was a reason we had lost the 4 or 5 of the last 6 games at the G.  He said it was a surprise statistic for him.  Not sure what to make of his surprise.

Hopefully, we can develop a core plan that plays to our teams strengths and is tweaked for the ground each week as each has peculiarities.  

Good post.  I found this interesting too.  I took it more to mean that he is well aware and doesn't want the media to look into it so it becomes "a thing" - so just dismissed it.  Clearly it would be a concern.

I'm also concerned we seem to be worse at the MCG than we used to be - given it is our home ground and where the GF is played this clearly is not deliberate.  I'm hoping it is more about tidying up our weaknesses e.g. defenders having confidence in each other and therefore not flying together, Tmac / Weid straightening us up & perhaps adding some more speed to the team - Viney & whoever makes it out of J Smith / Frost / Baker / Stretch at the expense of the slowest (Lewis / Vince / Tyson).

Maybe (hopefully) these things will be enough for us to get our "game plan" to click at the MCG.  Because the current style of kicking to the boundary (same side every time) and backing your inside mids to win it every time is far too predictable, leads to poor and wide I50s and will not stand up against anyone in September.  

[Deemania since 56 6,640]

9 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

One would like to think our coaches are aware of our performance on different grounds.  But in the presser after the Rich game Goodwin was asked if there was a reason we had lost the 4 or 5 of the last 6 games at the G.  He said it was a surprise statistic for him.  Not sure what to make of his surprise.

This is yet another MFC worry - surely the Coach knows the form on playing at the MCG. To be honest, I had not realised that this was the case for us at the MCG yet concede that structurally, we may not have prepared for 'home' games. I wonder ... What do others think of this observation?

[DV8 2,271]

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

And we can’t buy a win at the G so far this year ?

Lets see how we go with Spargo, et al, next time.  More run and speed.

[DV8 2,271]

9 hours ago, dl4e said:

I look at the title of this thread and remember yesterdays game and shake my head. We played poorly and the second half was a demonstration of how bad essenscum were.

Essendon allow a lot of space around the field of play. They did last week, and i thought if they allow Us space around the contest, and around the ground, like their game last week, then we've got them.

And they did, and we did. 

[What 18,810]

4-1 at Etihad under Goodwin.

Only loss was round 3 to Geelong last season when we lost Gawn before halftime and Geelong could not miss kicking 20.6 while we had more scoring shots and wasted our opportunities kicking 13.19 . 

[DeezNuts 624]

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

4-1 at Etihad under Goodwin.

Only loss was round 3 to Geelong last season when we lost Gawn before halftime and Geelong could not miss kicking 20.6 while we had more scoring shots and wasted our opportunities kicking 13.19 . 

I flew from Sydney to Melbourne for that game... gotta say it was an ordinary flight back...

[DeezNuts 624]

3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

This is yet another MFC worry - surely the Coach knows the form on playing at the MCG. To be honest, I had not realised that this was the case for us at the MCG yet concede that structurally, we may not have prepared for 'home' games. I wonder ... What do others think of this observation?

My view on this is a little unsettled...

Form aside, a wider field generally calls for a tighter 1 on 1 battle in defence than one that is more narrow/short, this allows for the contested game, of which we hold our heads up high. On offence, we should be looking for a more direct straight down the middle approach at the G. So for mine, it depends on the phase of the game.

The transition between offence and defence has proven for us to be problematic. Not through lack of fitness or drive, but more structural setup.

This is where I become concerned.

6 or 8 defenders off the back after a stoppage doesn't necessarily translate into en-masse contested domination unless of-course the opponent doesn't have the same grit and fitness of our list.

The challenge we could address on the larger field is purely our ability to execute rapid lateral-movement. The endless (me included) criticism for the Tyson's and others who lack outside-pace restrict our ability to change-tact during the transition in this regard on a larger field.

More pace, outside on the wings, a commitment to choke a transition and we're on our way to being a very difficult team to defend against from what is a very difficult team to defend against with our I50 count - no matter the field geography.

Go Dees!

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by DeezNuts

[What 18,810]

5-1 at Etihad under Goodwin.

This is our ground now.

[DeeSpencer 25,713]

On 4/30/2018 at 9:38 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

A few weeks ago I posted these comments in another thread:

I question whether the aggressive zone (or any zone) is suited to the width of the MCG.  It is 12 to 30 meters wider than other major AFL ovals. This makes it too easy for opp to get the ball to the outside and out the back. Of the 15 games we have played at the G under Goodwin we have won only 7:  In 2017 - Carlton (x2), Coll, Saints, Power, Lions.  In 2018 - North.

Most teams have pared back their use of zones.  Even the Eagles tempered their 'web' after they were demolished in the GF by Hawthorn, a few years ago. We need a game plan that will win on the G! 

Including ANZAC Eve it is 7 wins from 16 MCG games. 

Richmond and Hawthorn are brilliant at defending the G.  Geelong is getting better at it.  Collingwood is also learning (see Qtr 1, rnd 23 2017?) 

One would like to think our coaches are aware of our performance on different grounds.  But in the presser after the Rich game Goodwin was asked if there was a reason we had lost the 4 or 5 of the last 6 games at the G.  He said it was a surprise statistic for him.  Not sure what to make of his surprise.

Hopefully, we can develop a core plan that plays to our teams strengths and is tweaked for the ground each week as each has peculiarities.  

Definitely true. You need better one on one defenders and better spread of forwards at the G but more than anything it really tests your midfield spread. Without the midfield running our backline gets exposed. I'm sure the hope is the young mids get fitter and start to spread better and cut down the chances. 

Against the Tigers we played the ground and opponent pretty well and it was only the break downs that let them get open runners that contributed to easier goals. Otherwise it would've been about 8 goals a piece for 3 quarters.

The other thing we love to do is kick across the ground and change the angles and at the G it's just too tempting to go wide and get stuck in space. If our defending improves we can attack more through the guts at the G.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

We just seem so at ease at Etihad, now to transfer it to the G.