We look fast when we have the ball - chasing a better structured team is not the answer. Sure, we need pace. But we need to prevent the overlap, prevent the switch, prevent the run off half back. This is all about structure - not a foot race.

It's coaching (or following instructions) - but I think coaching.

TMac on the wing
Hogan high
Fritsch in defense
Viney tagging

Bad coaching decisions.

Everyone flying - no small forwards.

When we're good, we look real good. I don't think we're that good. I think we have the talent and the list. I think we need better coaching.

Lost 3 in a row, now; same opposition methodology.

Sigh

Quote

 

We didn’t drink our own bathwater says Gawn.  Too bad there isn’t a breathalyser test for it. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/we-didn-t-drink-our-own-bathwater-gawn-20180702-p4zp0f.html

Edited July 2, 20186 yr by america de cali

36 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Jack Steele was on SEN today and said that they saw how we had been beaten by the Pies and Port. They knew if they used their pace and players worked hard to create overlap, they would beat us. They did and they did. He found it pretty simple as to what they had to do.

My question is, what did our coaching panel do to counter what other sides and presumably us as well knew, as to how we can be beaten.

All I can see, is that we actually made it harder for us to win, by going even taller and slower.

Gee, I wonder why they have lost 11 games then? Hindsight is a marvellous thing Jackie boy

51 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is a pretty poor post from you. I expect better. BTW am I in the "most others "category? Just wondering.

Redleg, that comment was in reply to Skuit’s post where he indicated I shouldn’t have to constantly defend my position. My point was that I don’t have to; for the most part I just ignore posts that are critical of me. That was a feature I developed in the early days of moderating this forum, where the criticism was harsh and regular.

My answer to your question is “N/A” as you’ve never levelled personal criticism at me over anything I’ve said or done. I don’t always agree with your view but I immensely respect your view and the way you conduct yourself in this forum.

1 hour ago, bobby1554 said:

Gee, I wonder why they have lost 11 games then? Hindsight is a marvellous thing Jackie boy

Maybe we're just way easier to work out and beat

Early in the game brayshaw kicked a goal and Salem and him celebrated like they had just won the premiership. Similar to recent years when we celebrated a win way too much. One day I hope I get to see a ruthless mfc where goals/wins are just business as usual!

37 minutes ago, timbo said:

Maybe we're just way easier to work out and beat

Boom...tish !!!

Slam dunk !!!

How poorly...really...does it reflect on us that a team...its coach were able to so easily peg us ?

And part of that ease must stem from the reticence of our coach to change tack. 

We continually cut off our nose to spite our face.

Edited July 2, 20186 yr by beelzebub

26 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Boom...tish !!!

Slam dunk !!!

How poorly...really...does it reflect on us that a team...its coach were able to so easily peg us ?

And part of that ease must stem from the reticence of our coach to change tack. 

We continually cut off our nose to spite our face.

I'm all for 80/20 simple footy but sometimes it'd be nice to cut to oppo coach box bewilderment with oppo coach doodling on his resume and everyone wondering WTF is going on as we run rings

yoi know, as we execute plan c and have a bit of dynamism

1 hour ago, bringbackthebiff said:

Early in the game brayshaw kicked a goal and Salem and him celebrated like they had just won the premiership. Similar to recent years when we celebrated a win way too much. One day I hope I get to see a ruthless mfc where goals/wins are just business as usual!

I won't be satisfied until tmac kicks the first 8 goals in a GF and veryone comes in to high 5 him and he karate chops their hands away with a McEnroe-esque "you cannot be serious" with flint eyed steeliness and trenches of Gallipoli hardness and resolve

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Boom...tish !!!

Slam dunk !!!

How poorly...really...does it reflect on us that a team...its coach were able to so easily peg us ?

And part of that ease must stem from the reticence of our coach to change tack. 

We continually cut off our nose to spite our face.

There was such a lot of sadness for the coach of St Kilda on Fox (does have a plumb posse there with bucky) during the week. Almost as if something had to be done, and so it came to pass............. 

I know what is wrong , we simply don't have enough players who will die for one another, who are prepared to be absolutely spent at the final siren.

It's called culture now, but that's the meaning.

What I find disappointing is Goodwin is still prepared to play certain individuals who don't or won't do this.

Defensively we are lazy, give up, won't chase and leave an inexperienced backline to cope. 

Until that changes we are not a finals team.  

 

 

9 hours ago, ProDee said:

While our backline definitely has issues we lost this game through the middle of the ground. 

St Kilda went to school on our QB game and used run and overlap in a swarm once they gained possession.  

Until we can defend through the middle of the ground we won't get anywhere. 

I do think we should be able to develop far better defensive structures through the middle of the ground. 

The Saints and Collingwood games looked almost identical with the opposition run and overlap. 

But I don't think it's entirely a matter of poor defensive running to which Goody attributes it publicly. Our effort in our losses has been there, outside of perhaps Hawthorn and some poor spread due partially to crowding the contest.

We put a lot of work into pressuring the carrier - with the least kicks recorded against this year. A factor of this is the full commitment by the players to come off their men and move up to the carrier with speed. 

I support this level of intensity and it's great to watch, but when the opposition slips through it means the final overlap link is achieved higher up the ground with the inside-50 kicker given plenty of space and angles to work with. 

It's not just a high-zone set-up but a forward-rolling press when the opposition gains possession. When it doesn't come off it gives the appearance of us looking ultra-slow. Extra leg speed probably won't help us here - we're fast enough when we have the ball. 

My thoughts are that we need to relax this defensive intensity in the wider spaces of the MCG and guard space/forward runners and slow the carrier a little more when the opposition is rolling through the middle from half-back. There will be reduced opportunity to launch a turnover attack from the centre, but on the balance I think we come out on top. 

Effectively, we're forcing the opposition to move the ball faster, which gives us less time for defensive rearguard action. It's not poor defensive running, but the lack of opportunity to get back in numbers. It also makes the opposition look a million bucks, and in my opinion, gives them extra confidence in their ability to take the game on. 

It's a minor tweak and doesn't fully undermine our strengths. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The Saints and Collingwood games looked almost identical with the opposition run and overlap. 

But I don't think it's entirely a matter of poor defensive running to which Goody attributes it publicly. Our effort in our losses has been there, outside of perhaps Hawthorn and some poor spread due partially to crowding the contest.

We put a lot of work into pressuring the carrier - with the least kicks recorded against this year. A factor of this is the full commitment by the players to come off their men and move up to the carrier with speed. 

I support this level of intensity and it's great to watch, but when the opposition slips through it means the final overlap link is achieved higher up the ground with the inside-50 kicker given plenty of space and angles to work with. 

It's not just a high-zone set-up but a forward-rolling press when the opposition gains possession. When it doesn't come off it gives the appearance of us looking ultra-slow. Extra leg speed probably won't help us here - we're fast enough when we have the ball. 

My thoughts are that we need to relax this defensive intensity in the wider spaces of the MCG and guard space/forward runners and slow the carrier a little more when the opposition is rolling through the middle from half-back. There will be reduced opportunity to launch a turnover attack from the centre, but on the balance I think we come out on top. 

Effectively, we're forcing the opposition to move the ball faster, which gives us less time for defensive rearguard action. It's not poor defensive running, but the lack of opportunity to get back in numbers. It also makes the opposition look a million bucks, and in my opinion, gives them extra confidence in their ability to take the game on. 

It's a minor tweak and doesn't fully undermine our strengths. 

 

 

On the couch , video footage, pretty much shows poor defensive running!

1 minute ago, shorty said:

On the couch , video footage, pretty much shows poor defensive running!

Okay. I stand corrected. 

9 hours ago, praha said:

Pretty confident that unless we play finals and they both lift their game, both Salem and Jones will be traded at season's end. That would help us land Gaff and give us more flexibility. We had assets to trade but as is the Melbourne way we always hold onto players for far too long. Cameron Bruce should have been traded long before we let him walk to Hawthorn for nothing. Watts should have been traded after 2016 when his stocks were at their highest. Evidently, we let the likes of Dunn and Howe leave because we still have no idea how to nurture and develop troubled talent. They are both EXACTLY what we need defensively right now.

Goodwin has some runs on the board with Spargo, Hannan and Frisch. But he needs to make another tough decision with this list akin to his Watts decision. 

I know you think it would be some sort of important statement but not only is there no chance at all that we will trade our captain, it would also be a shocking move.

Trading out one of the few players who bleeds for this club, with the positive media he brings (look at how the media/public reacted to his 250th), would break both the players' spirits and create unnecessary tension, pressure and negativity around the club.

We can, and should, internally challenge Jones to improve his game. Some have suggested a move to the half-back flank and that might be the right call.

But trading him is just complete nonsense.

8 hours ago, Scoop Junior said:

Yep I think you make a really good point ProDee about what we're doing right, which is often overlooked when we have such a disappointing loss.

Our ability to win the inside ball and get enough supply is up there with the best in the competition. So we're clearly being well developed in that part of the game.

But definitely some tinkering needs to be made in how we set up defensively when the opposition gain possession in and around our forward 50m, especially on wide grounds like the MCG. St Kilda's ability to move the ball up the ground time and time again without pressure and isolate 1v1s or 2v2s in its forward 50 was an absolute joke. And it has happened enough times over the last two years to be cause for concern.

In my view we would have comfortably beaten Geelong and St Kilda if we could've defended their rebound better. Geelong went at 66% for scores per inside 50 (off the charts) and St Kilda at 58% (ridiculous for a bottom three side). Win those games and we would be sitting second at 10-4, with the footy public lauding what we're doing. Arguably we should've also beaten Port taking us equal top.

It shows two things - 1) this is a game of really fine margins and 2) we are doing a lot of things right.

Even as we stand here at Round 15, we are effectively only improved defensive transition off being a top 4 side.

I agree with the bolded line, but my concern is that we're not willing and/or not able to fix the problem.

It's been evident since the start of last year but in particular manifested grossly against Geelong in Round 1. 14 weeks later and we haven't made any improvements in that area.

18 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The Saints and Collingwood games looked almost identical with the opposition run and overlap. 

But I don't think it's entirely a matter of poor defensive running to which Goody attributes it publicly. Our effort in our losses has been there, outside of perhaps Hawthorn and some poor spread due partially to crowding the contest.

We put a lot of work into pressuring the carrier - with the least kicks recorded against this year. A factor of this is the full commitment by the players to come off their men and move up to the carrier with speed. 

I support this level of intensity and it's great to watch, but when the opposition slips through it means the final overlap link is achieved higher up the ground with the inside-50 kicker given plenty of space and angles to work with. 

It's not just a high-zone set-up but a forward-rolling press when the opposition gains possession. When it doesn't come off it gives the appearance of us looking ultra-slow. Extra leg speed probably won't help us here - we're fast enough when we have the ball. 

My thoughts are that we need to relax this defensive intensity in the wider spaces of the MCG and guard space/forward runners and slow the carrier a little more when the opposition is rolling through the middle from half-back. There will be reduced opportunity to launch a turnover attack from the centre, but on the balance I think we come out on top. 

Effectively, we're forcing the opposition to move the ball faster, which gives us less time for defensive rearguard action. It's not poor defensive running, but the lack of opportunity to get back in numbers. It also makes the opposition look a million bucks, and in my opinion, gives them extra confidence in their ability to take the game on. 

It's a minor tweak and doesn't fully undermine our strengths. 

Good post.

I think a small example of the problem you've identified is the continued sight we see of too many Melbourne players going to the ball carrier and opposition players sitting off the contest waiting for the handball receive. I think if we encourage the players to be slightly less concerned with getting to the ball carrier and tackling, and more concerned with watching running patterns through our zone, we'll slow down the transition against us.

The other thing we need to do is work on improving how we move the ball going forward. We're A-grade at getting the ball but at the moment the way we're trying to move it from the middle to the goals is pretty poor. IMO it starts with how we set up forward of the ball. I think all 5-6 of our forwards start at bounces too high up the ground, meaning our kicks routinely are to their heads or to a pack, and there's no one leading up at the kicker. We have Hogan and TMac in our side, two forwards who excel at leading up and taking contested marks. I'd like to see us start at the centre bounce with one of them in the goal square. If we win the clearance, and we need a quick release kick inside, one of them is then able to lead up to the ball. We also need to continue to work on our mids/half-forwards lowering their eyes, and I think we need one or two small forwards to put extra pressure on the opposition when they are trying to run through our zone coming out.

17 hours ago, Elegt said:

I don't understand why people consider Tyson trade bait.  do you really think other afl clubs will want him lol. gws got rid of him for a reason and Melbourne got conned hard.

I'm not saying we'd get much for him but what is the other option? Keep him for 5-7 more years? Delist him and get nothing? A pick in the 30s similar to Watts would be ok.

14 hours ago, frankie_d said:

We look fast when we have the ball - chasing a better structured team is not the answer. Sure, we need pace. But we need to prevent the overlap, prevent the switch, prevent the run off half back. This is all about structure - not a foot race.

It's coaching (or following instructions) - but I think coaching.

TMac on the wing
Hogan high
Fritsch in defense
Viney tagging

Bad coaching decisions.

Everyone flying - no small forwards.

When we're good, we look real good. I don't think we're that good. I think we have the talent and the list. I think we need better coaching.

Lost 3 in a row, now; same opposition methodology.

Sigh

Where does Craig Jennings sit in this? Supposedly he's the guru breaking down opposition gameplans. Chaplin? Richmond have a ball movement coach (Caracella). Maybe we need to start adapting our coaching panel to the modern game ie not line coaches but situational coaches.

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Where does Craig Jennings sit in this? Supposedly he's the guru breaking down opposition gameplans. Chaplin? Richmond have a ball movement coach (Caracella). Maybe we need to start adapting our coaching panel to the modern game ie not line coaches but situational coaches.

An interesting approach Gonzo. More than just a ball movement coach but situational coaches. Would make the coaches work together and the whole team could feel connected. If taken to the extreme it could be like Gridion with their play books and codes. Different plays and structures to suit the situation. It would be more difficult for the opposition to understand our game, so long as the players can apply this intellectual and possibly complicated approach. I can see our runner sending out messages like plan 4p6 or our leaders acting like the quarterback and ordering a play.  Breaks in play would see players running in all directions in order to set up. The ability of each team to adapt to the other team would be interesting. I guess there would be room for instinctual play and plenty of trial and error attempts. If adapted by all clubs I can see transfered players bringing a wealth of knowledge to the new club.  There would plenty of opportunities for analysis by commentators and fans. Though would it work better than keeping football simple and applying the basics well. I believe in the basics. Clean gather and use of ball, work hard when defending, create and have an impact when in attack. Change the tempo of the game when necessary, do the one percenters, create a winning culture at the club. Simplicity versus an intellectual approach.   

 What does it say on the board? 

 

Talls sp????

Wizard ???

Change lanes

 

Anyone get 1 and 2 (3 - well, der)

 

 

On 7/2/2018 at 5:24 PM, bobby1554 said:

Gee, I wonder why they have lost 11 games then? Hindsight is a marvellous thing Jackie boy

They set themselves for beating us. They had something to prove. They found our weakness and exploited it perfectly as a couple of other teams have also done. Maybe their other opponents planned for them. We clearly didn't.

4 minutes ago, frankie_d said:

 What does it say on the board? 

 

Talls sp????

Wizard ???

Change lanes

 

Anyone get 1 and 2 (3 - well, der)

 

 

Yikes!

Petracca paying close attention....

Edited July 4, 20186 yr by SFebey

On 7/2/2018 at 5:07 PM, frankie_d said:

We look fast when we have the ball - chasing a better structured team is not the answer. Sure, we need pace. But we need to prevent the overlap, prevent the switch, prevent the run off half back. This is all about structure - not a foot race.

It's coaching (or following instructions) - but I think coaching.

TMac on the wing
Hogan high
Fritsch in defense
Viney tagging

Bad coaching decisions.

Everyone flying - no small forwards.

When we're good, we look real good. I don't think we're that good. I think we have the talent and the list. I think we need better coaching.

Lost 3 in a row, now; same opposition methodology.

Sigh

Agree with your comments, but team selection poor.

-  Petty not up to it yet! He will be, but maybe early 2020, after two preseasons.

- Tyson can play in the middle, but way too slow for wing and he doesn’t chase.

- No crumbers in forward line.

Weekbefore  vs Port needed a crumber, a big bodied defender and can’t play Tyson, Lewis& Vince in the same team!

There should be 3-4 changes this week. Petty, Tyson & Hannan out, maybe Weideman. Replaced respectively by Frost, Stretch, Spargo & Garlett!

On 7/2/2018 at 8:55 PM, Skuit said:

The Saints and Collingwood games looked almost identical with the opposition run and overlap. 

But I don't think it's entirely a matter of poor defensive running to which Goody attributes it publicly. Our effort in our losses has been there, outside of perhaps Hawthorn and some poor spread due partially to crowding the contest.

We put a lot of work into pressuring the carrier - with the least kicks recorded against this year. A factor of this is the full commitment by the players to come off their men and move up to the carrier with speed. 

I support this level of intensity and it's great to watch, but when the opposition slips through it means the final overlap link is achieved higher up the ground with the inside-50 kicker given plenty of space and angles to work with. 

It's not just a high-zone set-up but a forward-rolling press when the opposition gains possession. When it doesn't come off it gives the appearance of us looking ultra-slow. Extra leg speed probably won't help us here - we're fast enough when we have the ball. 

My thoughts are that we need to relax this defensive intensity in the wider spaces of the MCG and guard space/forward runners and slow the carrier a little more when the opposition is rolling through the middle from half-back. There will be reduced opportunity to launch a turnover attack from the centre, but on the balance I think we come out on top. 

Effectively, we're forcing the opposition to move the ball faster, which gives us less time for defensive rearguard action. It's not poor defensive running, but the lack of opportunity to get back in numbers. It also makes the opposition look a million bucks, and in my opinion, gives them extra confidence in their ability to take the game on. 

It's a minor tweak and doesn't fully undermine our strengths. 

 

 

They did because they were. Hawks game to a degree as well, they were transitioning off half back off our turnovers while we press up quite deep so our opposition ends up with the ball over the press and in open space regularly. Players like Brayshaw every week and Jones was also a culprit last week are going to turn the ball over and opposition sides will continue to counter. There is a reason why the Hawthorn team under Clarkson have focussed on guys clinical by foot for many years with success.

 

1 hour ago, Big Demon said:

They did because they were. Hawks game to a degree as well, they were transitioning off half back off our turnovers while we press up quite deep so our opposition ends up with the ball over the press and in open space regularly. Players like Brayshaw every week and Jones was also a culprit last week are going to turn the ball over and opposition sides will continue to counter. There is a reason why the Hawthorn team under Clarkson have focussed on guys clinical by foot for many years with success.

 

That Hawks team already belongs to a different era with far less pressure being applied to the contest - more space for the kicker and less need to take riskier options to clear the congestion.

All teams since the 90s have also looked to attack off half-back, and supporters of all teams since forever think that their team's skills are the worst. We rank ninth for turnovers (or seventh for the least turnovers) while Richmond rank as the fifth worst and Carlton the third best.

Meanwhile, we're one of the best teams for creating opposition turnovers, and are the highest scoring team in the league, due in part to prioritising players with contested skills over foot-skills. 

7 hours ago, frankie_d said:

 What does it say on the board? 

 

Talls sp????

Wizard ???

Change lanes

 

Anyone get 1 and 2 (3 - well, der)

 

 

No wonder we can't follow instructions with that hand-writing.