So I just finished reading of Sydney's troubles at the SCG this year where they're 1-3 and it got me thinking of our own troubles on our home turf.

Granted that the travel factor makes this a non factor comparison, but it's relevant as an isolated issue for us, because we haven't quite played out best footy on the MCG in the past 14 or so months.

Since Round 1 2017:

MCG record: 7 wins 9 losses

Away from the MCG: 9 wins 4 losses

I'd have never thought given the past 10 years that we'd ever be a more reliable team away from the MCG, but here we are: I'm more confident of beating Adelaide in Adelaide or West Coast in Perth than I am beating either on the MCG.

I watched the broadcast of the St Kilda game this evening, and before the game Goodwin said something along the lines of Etihad suiting our style of play.

At Etihad, we look faster, cleaner, and more efficient. On the MCG we look to be in a slow slog. 

The most obvious reason being the width and dimension of the MCG: we sometimes seem to struggle to get back to contests or cover space. 

I think the Richmond game was a good insight, because we playing a similarly styled game as them, yet they seem to have more run and space, and play the MCG superbly. Ironically, they aren't anywhere near as efficient away from the MCG.

IMO, I think our biggest challenge as a team at the moment is mastering the MCG. If we can't perform reliably and consistently on the ground, then we will struggle to ever do more than make up the numbers.

I also feel it is the only thing atm standing in the way of us being a top 4 side.

I am not sure if it's a personnel issue or a game plan issue, and I wonder if a Martin-style line break would make the difference as he does for Richmond.

Thoughts?

 

 

One man will solve all our problems and that's the beast Viney. We were flying until he got injured.

Major concerns regarding our game style and MCG.

Our high contested possession game plan works at etihad because it’s a smaller ground and less reliant on good kicking. 

As the grounds get bigger, not only do you need to be good at contested possession but also a good kicking game which we are woefull at.

Clarkson and his protege hardwick have perfected this.

Goodwin needs to start implementing a better kicking game for us to improve. 

12 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

One man will solve all our problems and that's the beast Viney. We were flying until he got injured.

Hoping that Viney pulls up well for Casey and finds the ball. If his foot stands the rigours, then he plays the following week against the Blues.  Can't wait , they will lift around him.

Great thread. I think you praha and bandicoot have summed this up perfectly.

I was thinking something similar after watching the two Etihad games. I've also complained in the past as to how we run in a wave from contest to contest (or out of one), which is good at the smaller Etihad but appears to come undone with an opposition kick out the back on the big MCG.

I think the game plan is good, it certainly looks great when it comes off well, but it seems go be incredibly exhausting and needs to be supplemented with a more conservative Plan-B Paul Roos-like or Hawthorn-like game plan (switching between the two).

If we're to play finals, or even compete to win a grand final, the game plan MUST be more suited for the MCG, not Etihad as Goodwin has eluded to.

Simple you just have to work harder st the G  

Hard run both ways

The team needs great fitness but also absolute commitment to the running for 4 quarters

So far we haven't been able or fit enough  to do that or make the commitment at the G

No magic required to win just bloody hard work and desire

Our aggressive press makes it easy for opp to get the ball wide on the wing, flick it over or around our press and run it forward.  Our lack of leg speed makes it hard to catch the ball carrier.

Richmond have a press but they defend 'in formation' as do Hawthorn and keep some players around their back 50 arc.  Sydney play the MCG well but they have a more traditional man on man defence and always keep a sweeper deep (McVeigh).  Those teams don't follow the opp forwards up the ground so when there is a turnover, they pick up their man or move their defence back 'in formation'.  As our defenders are so high (around or forward of the centre) we loose our defensive structure so even if we have a 'formation' it falls apart.  Simply put, the G is too wide for our current game style especially against the better sides.

That Goodwin says Etihad suits our game style means he is also aware (I hope) why it doesn't succeed on the G.  He has changed a few things since the Hawthorn game (eg more mileage from Max's clearances, fewer players in the packs and putting players in their 'best' position eg Brayshaw).  

If we are ever to get a 'Home Ground' advantage and go deep into the finals we need a game plan that succeeds it.  So, I'm looking forward to see what changes are made to 'Conquer The G'. 

Edited May 9, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Whatever the problem is they'd better fix it because the GF sure as sh$//t is not going to Docklandz.

Length wise most stadiums seem to be much the same except for Sydney which is 10m shorter.

There is quite a variation in width at the widest point .... 12 metres difference between MCG and Docklands (NB: I could not find figures that were based on the position of the boundary line as distinct form the boundary fence.)

http://www.freebookiebets.com.au/afl_football_grounds.htm

 

On 5/10/2018 at 9:10 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

Length wise most stadiums seem to be much the same except for Sydney which is 10m shorter.

There is quite a variation in width at the widest point .... 12 metres difference between MCG and Docklands (NB: I could not find figures that were based on the position of the boundary line as distinct form the boundary fence.)

http://www.freebookiebets.com.au/afl_football_grounds.htm

I put this table in the Eithad thread

 

Quite a bit of difference.  I feel confident the coaches will modify our game plan so our defensive structures don't break down on the G.

Edited October 21, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

We seem to be dropping defenders further back since the Hawks game (mainly OMac but also Hibberd and Jetta) so hopefully that will help prevent teams get out the back so easily.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We seem to be dropping defenders further back since the Hawks game (mainly OMac but also Hibberd and Jetta) so hopefully that will help prevent teams get out the back so easily.

This.  Our press was being sucked too high up the ground and we were simply murdered over the back.  We have fixed this, and the defensive setup looks a lot better.  I think the issue is offensive more than defensive.  We don't look to use the additional space effectively by changing lanes or using width.  The MCG may as well have been 20m wide (the members wing boundary to half way to the centre square) for the Cats, Hawks and Richmond games.  We simply found no way to get out of this channel and could not attack with any speed or style.  Richmond and hawthorn both stationed players inside when they were out, and outside when they were in, so they could use width to split the press.  We don't do this, we just play 'stacks on' the contest.  Whilst the endeavour is fine, the lack of MCG performance shows that there is some nous (even nuance) missing from our gameplan.

The G is all about skills and precision. 

No plan works if you're wayward.

an interesting fact is that after the first 11 rounds of 2018 we will have played 8 away games and only 3 home games. (i am counting alice springs as an away game). In fact from round 6 we play 6 away games in a row

49 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

This.  Our press was being sucked too high up the ground and we were simply murdered over the back.  We have fixed this, and the defensive setup looks a lot better.  I think the issue is offensive more than defensive.  We don't look to use the additional space effectively by changing lanes or using width.  The MCG may as well have been 20m wide (the members wing boundary to half way to the centre square) for the Cats, Hawks and Richmond games.  We simply found no way to get out of this channel and could not attack with any speed or style.  Richmond and hawthorn both stationed players inside when they were out, and outside when they were in, so they could use width to split the press.  We don't do this, we just play 'stacks on' the contest.  Whilst the endeavour is fine, the lack of MCG performance shows that there is some nous (even nuance) missing from our gameplan.

Couldn't agree more with this.  It seems like we are far more willing to attack at Etihad, perhaps because it is easier to defend?

11 hours ago, praha said:

So I just finished reading of Sydney's troubles at the SCG this year where they're 1-3 and it got me thinking of our own troubles on our home turf.

Granted that the travel factor makes this a non factor comparison, but it's relevant as an isolated issue for us, because we haven't quite played out best footy on the MCG in the past 14 or so months.

Since Round 1 2017:

MCG record: 7 wins 9 losses

Away from the MCG: 9 wins 4 losses

I'd have never thought given the past 10 years that we'd ever be a more reliable team away from the MCG, but here we are: I'm more confident of beating Adelaide in Adelaide or West Coast in Perth than I am beating either on the MCG.

I watched the broadcast of the St Kilda game this evening, and before the game Goodwin said something along the lines of Etihad suiting our style of play.

At Etihad, we look faster, cleaner, and more efficient. On the MCG we look to be in a slow slog. 

The most obvious reason being the width and dimension of the MCG: we sometimes seem to struggle to get back to contests or cover space. 

I think the Richmond game was a good insight, because we playing a similarly styled game as them, yet they seem to have more run and space, and play the MCG superbly. Ironically, they aren't anywhere near as efficient away from the MCG.

IMO, I think our biggest challenge as a team at the moment is mastering the MCG. If we can't perform reliably and consistently on the ground, then we will struggle to ever do more than make up the numbers.

I also feel it is the only thing atm standing in the way of us being a top 4 side.

I am not sure if it's a personnel issue or a game plan issue, and I wonder if a Martin-style line break would make the difference as he does for Richmond.

Thoughts?

 

 

Agree, praha. To play a better game at the MCG - as we have all seen over so many years - is about finding that space, occupying it at brief intervals prior to downfield play deliveries or having the ball kicked to that free zone to run at considerable pace to warrant marking or playing on.

The 'G often has entire side corridors totally free for most of the game (eg: the Southern side) providing the legroom for intuitive players to exploit.

Our current batch of players have a tendency to overplay to Northern flanks (it has been suggested that the attentions of the Members' stand and its associations and approvals with the inhabitants thereof is the driving force). Even Robbie the Great Petalled One loved that side of the Ground. 

Footy players tend to be magnetised these days, and in their mutual attractions create congested areas for no particular reason. This slows the game.

Richmond has developed a more two-sided approach to the movement of the football at the MCG and naturally, reaps the benefits  so often, of unhindered progress and in individual player support from teammates.

This is most often seen from bringing the ball back into play from a behind at the kick-in; the ball is not transmitted to a teammate who has made space in no-man's land, it is transmitted to a ruckman on the Northern flank with an entourage in tow. Congestion.

 

2 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Agree, praha. To play a better game at the MCG - as we have all seen over so many years - is about finding that space, occupying it at brief intervals prior to downfield play deliveries or having the ball kicked to that free zone to run at considerable pace to warrant marking or playing on.

The 'G often has entire side corridors totally free for most of the game (eg: the Southern side) providing the legroom for intuitive players to exploit.

Our current batch of players have a tendency to overplay to Northern flanks (it has been suggested that the attentions of the Members' stand and its associations and approvals with the inhabitants thereof is the driving force). Even Robbie the Great Petalled One loved that side of the Ground. 

Footy players tend to be magnetised these days, and in their mutual attractions create congested areas for no particular reason. This slows the game.

Richmond has developed a more two-sided approach to the movement of the football at the MCG and naturally, reaps the benefits  so often, of unhindered progress and in individual player support from teammates.

This is most often seen from bringing the ball back into play from a behind at the kick-in; the ball is not transmitted to a teammate who has made space in no-man's land, it is transmitted to a ruckman on the Northern flank with an entourage in tow. Congestion.

 

Playing the Northern end has been a trait for as long as I've been supporting (early 90s). Sitting in AFL Members, it stands out because you have to rely on the scoreboard to see what's happening unless you're on the upper levels. However, I have noticed with Goodwin last year and this year, we are working to take advantage of the southern wing more often. This may be contributing to our lulls during games: growing pains, perhaps?

As others have mentioned it appears the coaching team is aware of it. I think that in pushing and switching to the southern wing more often, we're forced out of a comfort zone. 

We did seem to get better at playing the MCG as the season went on last year (round 23 being the exception). Hopefully with time this year we'll work our way through those growing pains.

Edited May 10, 20186 yr by praha

The best part is that the G is where we play the majority of our games. It is much easier to fix something that you get repeat exposure to, and practice implementing work arounds, than somewhere you only play twice a year. 

 

I'd rather be good everywhere else but need to learn to play the G than be good at the G and need to learn to win away

14 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Major concerns regarding our game style and MCG.

Our high contested possession game plan works at etihad because it’s a smaller ground and less reliant on good kicking. 

As the grounds get bigger, not only do you need to be good at contested possession but also a good kicking game which we are woefull at.

Clarkson and his protege hardwick have perfected this.

Goodwin needs to start implementing a better kicking game for us to improve. 

I'm confused by this (admittedly it doesn't take much). I would have thought that a smaller ground you would need better kicking skills as there is less space??  

Teams that play MCG well are more mature, better runners to cover the ground?

6 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I'm confused by this (admittedly it doesn't take much). I would have thought that a smaller ground you would need better kicking skills as there is less space??  

Teams that play MCG well are more mature, better runners to cover the ground?

In largers spaces your kicking game has to be pretty spot on... skilled accuracy. Otherwise you're just creating needless contests or turnovers. Either way your momentum goes to poo.

Out of interest how does Casey compare in size  and Gosch's paddock?

18 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

One man will solve all our problems and that's the beast Viney. We were flying until he got injured.

True. Until we win our flag or this group has failed, I will forever hearken back to that golden month of footy we played last year that started with us smashing the Dogs and ended when Bugg did a Barry Hall on Callum Mills in that Sydney game.

To me, that month was 3 people: Jack Viney, Tom McDonald, and Tomas Bugg. We need to get those three on the same ground together again because they are so important to our culture. Call me superstitious (or worse) about the third bloke, but the first 2 are beyond dispute.

Add in Gawn and Hogan and that month of footy would have gone on all year I reckon.

3 hours ago, deanox said:

The best part is that the G is where we play the majority of our games. It is much easier to fix something that you get repeat exposure to, and practice implementing work arounds, than somewhere you only play twice a year. 

 

I'd rather be good everywhere else but need to learn to play the G than be good at the G and need to learn to win away

I totally agree.

Except I don't rate our ability to learn. At all.

59 minutes ago, Chook said:

True. Until we win our flag or this group has failed, I will forever hearken back to that golden month of footy we played last year that started with us smashing the Dogs and ended when Bugg did a Barry Hall on Callum Mills in that Sydney game.

To me, that month was 3 people: Jack Viney, Tom McDonald, and Tomas Bugg. We need to get those three on the same ground together again because they are so important to our culture. Call me superstitious (or worse) about the third bloke, but the first 2 are beyond dispute.

Add in Gawn and Hogan and that month of footy would have gone on all year I reckon.

Ah... Bring back the Bugg.. it has a a ring to it.

Actually I think he is a real player but of course he has one flaw. Fix it and he's in.

All grounds should be exactly the same size, its ridiculous in this day and age there isn't a standard pitch size