2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do we have anyone on our coaching panel that has coached under Clarkson?

Rhetorical  ?? or other.??

It's a good question with an unfortunate ( imho ) answer.  We have none to my knowledge

Viney ( T) actually had a time under Clarkson...but hes not officially in any coaching role currently

Edited July 28, 20195 yr by beelzebub

19 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I was at that RIchmond v Port game and this was the most noticeable difference. Riewoldt and Lynch marking it far more often than TMac/Weideman have been, and small forwards making things happen when it hits the ground.

We've been missing TMac, Weid, Melksham, AVB and Garlett for these reasons. Plus at the start of the season TMac was clearly not fit. Our best games last year were when we locked the ball relentlessly in our forward 50, the pressure of Trac, ANB (who's been out of form/injured this year), AVB, Hannan etc. gave us the best opportunities to score. 

Unfortunately this year as soon as we got the backline semi healthy the forward line got destroyed. 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Rhetorical  ?? or other.??

It's a good question with an unfortunate ( imho ) answer.  We have none to my knowledge

Viney ( T) actually had a time under Clarkson...but hes not officially in any coaching role currently

Genuinely asking in case I was missing something. We really need to get an assistant who has had a good stint under Clarkson.

21 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Defenders, play on your man, forwards play in front, mids help out in defence and build a wall at half forward when we get it inside F50.

That's my under 11s game plan. Worth a shot?

 

My son's under 9s team plays a lot like Melbourne does. Numbers around the football, blind kicks forward, heaps of entries into the forward line.

Only difference is those kids would rather lose a limb than give up a shot at goal, whereas Melbourne players prefer to pass off from anywhere outside the goal square. Probably why the kids have won 8 of 11 and Melbourne has won 5 of 18. 

18 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

We've been missing TMac, Weid, Melksham, AVB and Garlett for these reasons. Plus at the start of the season TMac was clearly not fit. Our best games last year were when we locked the ball relentlessly in our forward 50, the pressure of Trac, ANB (who's been out of form/injured this year), AVB, Hannan etc. gave us the best opportunities to score. 

Unfortunately this year as soon as we got the backline semi healthy the forward line got destroyed. 

I said last year and at the beginning of 2019 that Melksham is our most important player. I stand by that. The leading assister in the competition last year and constantly links our midfield with our forwardline.

He was never fit this year and could barely kick 40m earlier on. A fit Melksham presenting with Fritsch playing forward and we're a much better forward entry team.

I think we can turn the corner quickly with a new forward set up that makes it easier for our mids to distribute the ball forward of centre.

23 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Defenders, play on your man, forwards play in front, mids help out in defence and build a wall at half forward when we get it inside F50.

That's my under 11s game plan. Worth a shot?

 

Yeh.... you must have the cattle for such a complicated game plan. Remember our blokes are  professionals and need to bring flasher terms to describe things.

a new game plan presupposes there is one to start with. Circular hand ball and kick in hope is about all i see.

Right now 

18th Tackle differencial

18th scoring after turnover

We do not run

Make the Team fit and hungry

The Hunger being the hard part

Max Gawn Captain 2020 is a start...

If a new game plan is on the menu, start by going back to watching St.K in 2009-10.

Watch how they spread, provided options, and hit targets both short and especially long. If it wasn't for the inception of Collingwood's forward press, every other club would have copied it in 2011-12. Now with the addition of the latest rules, which attempt to reduce congestion and the impact of forward pressing, many lessons can be learnt from it.

Craig Mcrae has great credentials.

Edited July 29, 20195 yr by Win4theAges

5 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do we have anyone on our coaching panel that has coached under Clarkson?

Has Ooooze coached a side in his own right?

Craig Mcrae would also be a good appointment.

3 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

We've been missing TMac, Weid, Melksham, AVB and Garlett for these reasons. Plus at the start of the season TMac was clearly not fit. Our best games last year were when we locked the ball relentlessly in our forward 50, the pressure of Trac, ANB (who's been out of form/injured this year), AVB, Hannan etc. gave us the best opportunities to score. 

Unfortunately this year as soon as we got the backline semi healthy the forward line got destroyed. 

Agree we miss the speed of the Garlett of old but his prime has past and Vanders I suspect may never play again. There is an urgent need to recruit a Garlett type of small goal kicking forward who tackles.

The most pointed thing about this thread is the lack of specific talk about what the 'game plan' is or what changes people want made to the 'game plan'. 

I think this demonstrates the average footy fan's inability to grasp how footy works when they watch it. It's a complicated game at the top level.

It also demonstrates the quality of the argument when those same posters complain that they don't like the game plan.

Its true Axis of Bob nobody has a real understanding of what they're trying to do. To an outsider it looks nonsensical when it doesn't work. But of course there is a specific game plan with a lot of strategic thinking behind it from very good football brains like Goodwin, Craig Jennings etc.. My fear is that it worked prior to 6-6-6 very well and we were [censored] by that introduction. Remember Goody playing 2 off the back square?

Difference with Richmond is they DONT try to win clearances & contested possession. WE DO as our 1 wood. Stats show if you win CP's, Clearances & Inside 50's you win 85% of games or something. Hence the strategy makes sense on paper to win. Problem is if DE% or Goal accuracy is bad you wo'nt win.

To play like Richmond would mean being ok with losing clearances, knowing you would turn the ball over as opposition tried to enter their forward 50. Then you waltz the ball out and score on counter attack. It's all about where you want your scoring chains to start from. To do that you need good intercept backmen. Hello Lever & May, which we never had before.

I don't think our skills are good enough for chaos ball or possession ball so we're pretty much screwed.

43 minutes ago, Deeminion said:

I don't think our skills are good enough for chaos ball or possession ball so we're pretty much screwed.

We've got think outside the square. What if we sawed off the goalposts at ankle height at one end of the ground? Then our opponents can't score.

6 hours ago, A F said:

I said last year and at the beginning of 2019 that Melksham is our most important player. I stand by that. The leading assister in the competition last year and constantly links our midfield with our forwardline.

He was never fit this year and could barely kick 40m earlier on. A fit Melksham presenting with Fritsch playing forward and we're a much better forward entry team.

I think we can turn the corner quickly with a new forward set up that makes it easier for our mids to distribute the ball forward of centre.

Agree completely, plus when we have good forwards who can lock the ball in longer it'll give the mids a bit of a rest so they might be able to do the 2 way running longer, and for the backs to be better set up against quick balls coming in. Fitness is the key to any game plan, but our game plan in particular.

 

3 hours ago, Older demon said:

Agree we miss the speed of the Garlett of old but his prime has past and Vanders I suspect may never play again. There is an urgent need to recruit a Garlett type of small goal kicking forward who tackles.

Garlett hasn't been great for over 2 years now, but we need someone in his mold, a real livewire in the forward 50 that demands attention even on poor days or who can turn a half chance into a goal. We don't have anyone else on the list like that, Hannan maybe but he's looked well short of anything this year. 

I watched the Richmond / Collingwood game on the weekend. It was like watching Melbourne 2018 versus Melbourne 2019. 

On 7/28/2019 at 12:12 PM, leucopogon said:

Defenders, play on your man, forwards play in front, mids help out in defence and build a wall at half forward when we get it inside F50.

That's my under 11s game plan. Worth a shot?

 

Brilliant stuff Leuco! Pure genius! Are you looking for a job? ; )

MFC.....RECRUIT THIS MAN NOW!

20 hours ago, poita said:

My son's under 9s team plays a lot like Melbourne does. Numbers around the football, blind kicks forward, heaps of entries into the forward line.

Only difference is those kids would rather lose a limb than give up a shot at goal, whereas Melbourne players prefer to pass off from anywhere outside the goal square. Probably why the kids have won 8 of 11 and Melbourne has won 5 of 18. 

Maybe offer our guys $5 per goal Poita??  I'll chip in.  With dough like that on offer Frosty will be slamming torps from the centre square!

It was 10 cents when I was a kid and all of us wanted to play forward.

18 hours ago, billyblanks29 said:

Its true Axis of Bob nobody has a real understanding of what they're trying to do. To an outsider it looks nonsensical when it doesn't work. But of course there is a specific game plan with a lot of strategic thinking behind it from very good football brains like Goodwin, Craig Jennings etc.. My fear is that it worked prior to 6-6-6 very well and we were [censored] by that introduction. Remember Goody playing 2 off the back square?

Difference with Richmond is they DONT try to win clearances & contested possession. WE DO as our 1 wood. Stats show if you win CP's, Clearances & Inside 50's you win 85% of games or something. Hence the strategy makes sense on paper to win. Problem is if DE% or Goal accuracy is bad you wo'nt win.

To play like Richmond would mean being ok with losing clearances, knowing you would turn the ball over as opposition tried to enter their forward 50. Then you waltz the ball out and score on counter attack. It's all about where you want your scoring chains to start from. To do that you need good intercept backmen. Hello Lever & May, which we never had before.

Most sensible post I’ve seen on demonland in 12 months.  For all the “experts” on this site that are slamming the game plan, to me it looks like almost every team plays a similar game plan in wanting to win contested possession and clearances, get it forward and then score.  Pretty simple.  Richmond seem to be the exception in that they concede they are battlers in the ruck and so don’t mind losing contested possession and clearances as long as they pressure like mad and intercept.  It can come undone spectacularly though as it did in the prelim last year.

The second part of a game plan is how to lock it in and there are only minor differences between teams but it makes a huge difference. Geelong and Richmond are the best at it.  They always have a full back and almost never get scored against out the back.  We give up way too many easy goals out the back.  Frustrates me no end when we turn it over in our forward 50, it is obvious we are caught out and everyone runs forward to stop the first kick to an open player and it pops over the top all the way to a goal.  What’s wrong with conceding one or two easy kicks to the wing but ensuring there are no easy kicks forward of centre like Geelong and Richmond do, and definitely making sure we always have Jake Lever or similar goal side to stop the easy out the back. Forward half turnovers are the major score source for all teams, so I suspect our coaching group are so obsessed with creating turnovers in our forward half that they can’t see the woods for the trees. 

The other part of a game plan is what teams do when the ball goes into your defensive 50 and you intercept or kick in from a point. Two distinct game plans are control it carefully to get it down the other end again, or move it quickly to get it out and score on the counter. All teams mix it up but the balance changes. We prefer the quick movement, but last week it was obvious we were trying the control method as first preference and it was our worst performance in 2 years.  We made 50 defensive 50 intercepts which was the highest we have had in 2 years, and did not score a single point from them, our worst performance in 2 years. Last year and through a part of this year we were 1st or 2nd for goals from defensive 50 intercepts.  Against the saints we failed to score, and gave up 13.4 by coughing it up.  Bad skills yes.  But it looked like we were trying something new. I would much rather Goodwin stick to his guns and attack hard after the intercept when the opposition are out of position.  It suits our list.  But probably doesn’t suit our current fitness levels.

The other part is our stoppages and forward line.  The last 2 weeks we have been down on clearances.  Once again it looks like we are trying something new.  The mids who have been drilled to hunt the ball look like they are trying to keep better structure and get cleaner exits which is fine. But we gave up too many the other way so didn’t get it right.  It may take time. However, when we did get clearances the quality was much better.  As a result, we scored a season high from stoppages against the saints and eagles, but at the expense of only 39 and 41 inside 50s the last 2 weeks.  Our season average i50 was 57.  However, the last 2 weeks, we have scored from over 50% of inside 50’s against a season average of just over 30%.  Stoppages helped, as did using more of the i50 space. That’s something new and we need to keep at it, not revert.  

I don’t buy the we don’t have the cattle rubbish. You can always improve a list, but we have the list to be pushing for top 4.  It just seems that poor fitness, some poor structures, drop in confidence and now a bit of confusion over new structures is combining for an annus horribillus.  It’s stating the obvious but it will be a huge preseason to sort these issues out and get fit.  My view is we are 2 or 3% off in each of fitness, stoppage structures, and defensive structures.  Adding some good outside speed and skills is another 1or 2%.  All adds up to being 10% off. The comp is so close that just being 3% off makes all the difference and the combination of all the above is why we are 17th. 

4 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Most sensible post I’ve seen on demonland in 12 months.  For all the “experts” on this site that are slamming the game plan, to me it looks like almost every team plays a similar game plan in wanting to win contested possession and clearances, get it forward and then score.  Pretty simple.  Richmond seem to be the exception in that they concede they are battlers in the ruck and so don’t mind losing contested possession and clearances as long as they pressure like mad and intercept.  It can come undone spectacularly though as it did in the prelim last year.

The second part of a game plan is how to lock it in and there are only minor differences between teams but it makes a huge difference. Geelong and Richmond are the best at it.  They always have a full back and almost never get scored against out the back.  We give up way too many easy goals out the back.  Frustrates me no end when we turn it over in our forward 50, it is obvious we are caught out and everyone runs forward to stop the first kick to an open player and it pops over the top all the way to a goal.  What’s wrong with conceding one or two easy kicks to the wing but ensuring there are no easy kicks forward of centre like Geelong and Richmond do, and definitely making sure we always have Jake Lever or similar goal side to stop the easy out the back. Forward half turnovers are the major score source for all teams, so I suspect our coaching group are so obsessed with creating turnovers in our forward half that they can’t see the woods for the trees. 

The other part of a game plan is what teams do when the ball goes into your defensive 50 and you intercept or kick in from a point. Two distinct game plans are control it carefully to get it down the other end again, or move it quickly to get it out and score on the counter. All teams mix it up but the balance changes. We prefer the quick movement, but last week it was obvious we were trying the control method as first preference and it was our worst performance in 2 years.  We made 50 defensive 50 intercepts which was the highest we have had in 2 years, and did not score a single point from them, our worst performance in 2 years. Last year and through a part of this year we were 1st or 2nd for goals from defensive 50 intercepts.  Against the saints we failed to score, and gave up 13.4 by coughing it up.  Bad skills yes.  But it looked like we were trying something new. I would much rather Goodwin stick to his guns and attack hard after the intercept when the opposition are out of position.  It suits our list.  But probably doesn’t suit our current fitness levels.

The other part is our stoppages and forward line.  The last 2 weeks we have been down on clearances.  Once again it looks like we are trying something new.  The mids who have been drilled to hunt the ball look like they are trying to keep better structure and get cleaner exits which is fine. But we gave up too many the other way so didn’t get it right.  It may take time. However, when we did get clearances the quality was much better.  As a result, we scored a season high from stoppages against the saints and eagles, but at the expense of only 39 and 41 inside 50s the last 2 weeks.  Our season average i50 was 57.  However, the last 2 weeks, we have scored from over 50% of inside 50’s against a season average of just over 30%.  Stoppages helped, as did using more of the i50 space. That’s something new and we need to keep at it, not revert.  

I don’t buy the we don’t have the cattle rubbish. You can always improve a list, but we have the list to be pushing for top 4.  It just seems that poor fitness, some poor structures, drop in confidence and now a bit of confusion over new structures is combining for an annus horribillus.  It’s stating the obvious but it will be a huge preseason to sort these issues out and get fit.  My view is we are 2 or 3% off in each of fitness, stoppage structures, and defensive structures.  Adding some good outside speed and skills is another 1or 2%.  All adds up to being 10% off. The comp is so close that just being 3% off makes all the difference and the combination of all the above is why we are 17th. 

Also a sensible post.

I agree with Juddy last night that the club will bounce up again next year, much for the reasons covered above.

But I also think our list was over-rated by the Champion Data info and grabbed onto by lazy media and this year was 'useful'  to expose some on the list with skill deficiencies and likely no more than B-graders. (Hunt, ANB, Wagners...) Some gems have also be discovered through opportunities for them (Hore, Petty, Baker...)

Darren Burgess, although some interesting discussion re: him leaving Arsenal, is a step to me showing the club is on the case.

Very intelligent post Watson11 you sound like you actually understand how the game is played and have a solid grasp of the numbers.

I'm gladdened by the fact Goodie is trying new game plan mid season as its not a common thing. Given we're at rock bottom, in a way its a positive to have this luxury to test & tweak mid season. I guess the other key ingredient is total player 'buy-in' to a game plan. That would give an additional 5%-10% as its so key all 22 are bought in. You can see Richmond's players are 110% "bought-in" as they're all in the right place at right time. I'm sure Goody will get the balance right & go into 2020 with a solid game plan that can win games.

The other key element is list strengths and playing to those. If the new game plan is required then do we have the cattle for it? My fear is we've built the last 5 years around CP's & clearances. Perhaps we can pivot with a few good outside ball users and it won't be a full 180. Fingers crossed.

2 hours ago, billyblanks29 said:

Very intelligent post Watson11 you sound like you actually understand how the game is played and have a solid grasp of the numbers.

I'm gladdened by the fact Goodie is trying new game plan mid season as its not a common thing. Given we're at rock bottom, in a way its a positive to have this luxury to test & tweak mid season. I guess the other key ingredient is total player 'buy-in' to a game plan. That would give an additional 5%-10% as its so key all 22 are bought in. You can see Richmond's players are 110% "bought-in" as they're all in the right place at right time. I'm sure Goody will get the balance right & go into 2020 with a solid game plan that can win games.

The other key element is list strengths and playing to those. If the new game plan is required then do we have the cattle for it? My fear is we've built the last 5 years around CP's & clearances. Perhaps we can pivot with a few good outside ball users and it won't be a full 180. Fingers crossed.

For the total buy in I actually think the club needs an independent review before next season.  Two reasons.  One to support the path that got set 5 years ago which I don’t buy was wrong or is wrong.  6-6-6 has not had that big an impact but has had some.  It would be a disaster to throw out the contested style.  It stands up in finals, but can also fall apart if you have poor structures as we saw in last years prelim.  It just needs refinement. Two, to get player feedback without fear of recriminations.  Understand exactly what the players are thinking after this years disaster  and then address it as a group and get total buy in on how to play.  

If that doesn’t happen then I fear for next year as well.