Run and Carry

[rumpole 522]

The reports in the media from yesterday's practice match are interesting.

The Herald-Sun's Jesper Fjeldstad writes about "Melbourne's reliance on handball at all cost in the first quarter – earning the Demons a three-goal lead" (HERE).

He then says that the Crows "heeded coach Neil Craig's demands they be competitive at all contests and move the ball swiftly."

In other words, it sounds very much as if Melbourne played keepings off with handball in the first quarter and were overrun by a far more direct style of football for the remainder of the game.

I'm fully aware that this was a practice game and that these games are for experimentation and we were half staffed yesterday but rather than blithely dismissing what goes on in these games I'm interested in understanding whether our experimentaton is getting us anywhere.

I'd like to hear from anyone who was at the game what they think of Melbourne's experiment with this run and carry style. Surely, it's something that's only going to exercised at particular times during a game and not exclusively throughout a game?

I would have thought that in windy conditions as applied yesterday, Melbourne would have been far better off playing its more direct long kicking style with the first quarter wind. To come in at quarter time with four shots at goal to two after having the benefit of a strong wind just about sums up how effective we are at "run and carry" as things stand. On that basis, it's little wonder that McDermott on 5aa was bagging us even early in the game.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

I would have thought that in windy conditions as applied yesterday, Melbourne would have been far better off playing its more direct long kicking style with the first quarter wind.

Sure, but you're forgetting that we didn't have our two key forwards out there.

And considering everyone on this site thinks Miller is useless, there would have been no point kicking it to him either.

Given we had no key forwards out there, it seems logical that we moved the ball by hand. I didn't watch or hear the game, but it sounds to me like we basically got overrun by the Crows. This to me is more worrying than the over-use of handballs, because we are meant to be fit enough to run out a game in March... if we're not, than nothing has really changed.

Still, it's a pre-season game, so there is really no need to make judgements.

[Jarka 767]

Sure, but you're forgetting that we didn't have our two key forwards out there.

And considering everyone on this site thinks Miller is useless, there would have been no point kicking it to him either.

Given we had no key forwards out there, it seems logical that we moved the ball by hand. I didn't watch or hear the game, but it sounds to me like we basically got overrun by the Crows. This to me is more worrying than the over-use of handballs, because we are meant to be fit enough to run out a game in March... if we're not, than nothing has really changed.

Still, it's a pre-season game, so there is really no need to make judgements.

No point kicking it to the forward line? Regardless of who is our forwards the aim of the game is to score goals and we obviously failed in that department.

My issue with this style of play is that when the opposition turns up the heat it breaks down, very quickly. In finals footy it will never work with the players we have - never. If Daniher is going to stick with this style of play then it will be a very long season, the better teams will just maul us into easy turnovers and score at will.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

No point kicking it to the forward line? Regardless of who is our forwards the aim of the game is to score goals and we obviously failed in that department.

My issue with this style of play is that when the opposition turns up the heat it breaks down, very quickly. In finals footy it will never work with the players we have - never. If Daniher is going to stick with this style of play then it will be a very long season, the better teams will just maul us into easy turnovers and score at will.

Well said.

[2007-premiers 0]

We are going to get killed if we are to continue playing this shite football for the rest of the season. Whilst it is good to experiment in the pre season our club still needs to get the players well versed on our game plan and how we want to play for the upcoming season. Looking at the first 2 games our over use of the handball if continued is going to make it a very frustrating season ahead for all our forwards, particularly Neita. WestCoast used the tactic very well last season against the Crows who constantly flooded back to great effect but i wouldn't be counting on that style of game plan to be successful week in week out

[demonfanjezza 1]

Sure, but you're forgetting that we didn't have our two key forwards out there.

And considering everyone on this site thinks Miller is useless, there would have been no point kicking it to him either.

Given we had no key forwards out there, it seems logical that we moved the ball by hand. I didn't watch or hear the game, but it sounds to me like we basically got overrun by the Crows. This to me is more worrying than the over-use of handballs, because we are meant to be fit enough to run out a game in March... if we're not, than nothing has really changed.

Still, it's a pre-season game, so there is really no need to make judgements.

Well said Jaded :D

[old55 23,687]

Well said.

Keen to know what your solution is when the opposition STARTS two extra players behind the ball in our forward line on the narrower grounds like Subi, Telstra Dome, AAMI and Kardinia Park? Your trade-mark kick it fast and long into the forward line will just end up with 3 against one or 4 against 2 contest every time. A backman can cover 10-20 metres to a contest in the time a long ball travels through the air and the ground gets thinner the closer to goal you get and therefore easier to cover space. Please tell me how kicking long to a narrow forward line with 6 forwards and 8 backs is going to work?

Kicking long is right some of the time but it's not right ALL the time and with particular set-ups as described above it is very, very wrong. We need to have variations - that's what run and carry is about. If the opposition starts with extra men back or floods extra men back then we may outnumber them in the midfield and can run and handball the ball to break the lines. If that draws their extra backs to the ball then we are no longer out-numbered in defence and can kick to space on the lead or to a more even contest. If they don't come to meet the ball we can keep running and shoot long on goal not to a contest.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

...

I've never said to kick it long "ALL of the time".

If an opposition started with an extra two players in Melbourne's forward line then straight away they are putting up the white flags and conceding that they are taking a negative approach to the game.

.

I like to be more positive, and trust the players’ ability.

As a general rule (variations depending on opposition and the Melbourne side selected) I'd move two extra players into Melbourne's forwardline (someone like Jamar who is capable of taking a big pack mark and even Bruce who can take a grab and roam the pack if the ball comes to ground).

The forwardline would obviously be a bit crowded but I would instruct the players to look for a leading forward and if noting is available to then go for the "hot spot" (around 15 - 25 metres out from goal), kick it directly into there, and trust the forwards to take a mark (Jamar, Neitz, Robertson etc) or at least bring the ball to ground (Bruce, Davey, Pickett, Yze etc).

Moving the two extra players into the forward line means that the opposition no longer has a numbers advantage in Melbourne’s forward line.

It does mean however that the oppositon have a relatively open forward line, and that’s the gamble you have got to make. If for example the opposition has a hard leading forward like a Lloyd or a Williams then I would look to move one of the players otherwise moved into the forward line across the center or even to half back where (if absolutely needed they can fill in some space if the ball is rebounded quickly). I do however trust the backline

The key is to move the ball fast, and directly into the forwardline to put the backmen under as much pressure as possible and prevent any further flooding from occurring.

Moreover, the first option should be the leading forward (Neitz, Robertson, Green etc) however if it is quickly clear that nothing is available then kicking it deep into Melbourne’s forwardline should be the next option, because as I said earlier the ball only needs to come to ground for the likes of Davey, Pickett or Yze (if he can be bothered) to weave their magic. All the pressure is on the opposition now because the ball is so close to Melbourne’s goals.

If Melbourne have the ball in the back pocket then I would encourage the half forwards to push up into the midfield to provide an option. Two things could happen here. Either the opposition defenders will follow their opponents leaving a much more open forwardline for the likes of Neitz and Robertson to lead into. Or some of the opposition defenders could stay back leaving Melbourne with extra numbers through the midfield. Now would be a good time to use the extra numbers and even the use of a “run and carry” style play to build up a bit of momentum before looking for a leading Neitz, Robertson or possibly even Green in the forwardline. Moreover assuming the players running through the midfield have the time, space and no other option is available; I would also encourage shots from around the forward 50, which most Melbourne midfielders and forwards are capable of.

For this to work it requires a lot of trust in the players but again I do trust their ability and there is more to be gained from being positive than there is to being negative.

Yes, it will concede some goals (as all plans do), however IMO it is the best option for success for the current Melbourne side.

What would you do in this situation Old?

[old55 23,687]

I've never said to kick it long "ALL of the time".

If an opposition started with an extra two players in Melbourne's forward line then straight away they are putting up the white flags and conceding that they are taking a negative approach to the game.

.

I like to be more positive, and trust the players’ ability.

As a general rule (variations depending on opposition and the Melbourne side selected) I'd move two extra players into Melbourne's forwardline (someone like Jamar who is capable of taking a big pack mark and even Bruce who can take a grab and roam the pack if the ball comes to ground).

The forwardline would obviously be a bit crowded but I would instruct the players to look for a leading forward and if noting is available to then go for the "hot spot" (around 15 - 25 metres out from goal), kick it directly into there, and trust the forwards to take a mark (Jamar, Neitz, Robertson etc) or at least bring the ball to ground (Bruce, Davey, Pickett, Yze etc).

Moving the two extra players into the forward line means that the opposition no longer has a numbers advantage in Melbourne’s forward line.

I'd move another two back on you and make it 10-8 and very, extremely, awfully crowded down there. The more you move forward, the more I'll move back. I'll be happy if we have 17-15 in your forward 50 and my FF against your 3 defenders in mine.

If Melbourne have the ball in the back pocket then I would encourage the half forwards to push up into the midfield to provide an option. Two things could happen here. Either the opposition defenders will follow their opponents leaving a much more open forwardline for the likes of Neitz and Robertson to lead into. Or some of the opposition defenders could stay back leaving Melbourne with extra numbers through the midfield. Now would be a good time to use the extra numbers and even the use of a “run and carry” style play to build up a bit of momentum before looking for a leading Neitz, Robertson or possibly even Green in the forwardline. Moreover assuming the players running through the midfield have the time, space and no other option is available; I would also encourage shots from around the forward 50, which most Melbourne midfielders and forwards are capable of.

What would you do in this situation Old?

I have absolutely no problem with that and it is a re-phrasing of my argument above in favour of run and carry.

Yes kick it long is good sometimes, yes run and carry is good sometimes. We've been a kicking team, now we're trying to introduce some run and carry into our armoury and overdoing it in some meaningless NAB Cup and pre-season practice games and you Chicken-littles are wailing - about what I am not sure?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Yes kick it long is good sometimes, yes run and carry is good sometimes.

That's what I've said all along.

I'm not worried the slightest about the results of the practice games.

I am worried however that Melbourne will try and impliment this "run and carry" as a key tactic in the H&A season.

We saw Melbourne try this against Adelaide late last year. The result says it all.

I'll be happy if we have 17-15 in your forward 50 and my FF against your 3 defenders in mine.

You would be happy with one full forward against three defenders?

[old55 23,687]

Yes kick it long is good sometimes, yes run and carry is good sometimes.

That's what I've said all along.

I'm not worried the slightest about the results of the practice games.

I am worried however that Melbourne will try and impliment this "run and carry" as a key tactic in the H&A season.

We saw Melbourne try this against Adelaide late last year. The result says it all.

Apparently you've just agreed that "run and carry is good sometimes"

Apparently that's what you've said all along.

But you don't actually want us to do it.

Huh?!? That must be some version of "common sense" that I am unfamiliar with.

Yes it will be a key tactic in the H&A season and you have described a situation where it is useful.

The implementation against Adelaide in R22 was poor but there's nothing wrong with the idea.

It was flawed to try to implement it cold but now we have practised it over summer.

You would be happy with one full forward against three defenders?

Yes I would. I'd take possession in your 32 man forward 50, run and carry because I outnumber you thru the midfield, kick to my FF one-out in the 50 if your defenders come to meet me or run to 50 and kick over their heads at goal if they don't - just as you described.

[Brocky 4]

Apparently you've just agreed that "run and carry is good sometimes"

Apparently that's what you've said all along.

But you don't actually want us to do it.

Huh?!? That must be some version of "common sense" that I am unfamiliar with.

Well put Old55!!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Yes kick it long is good sometimes, yes run and carry is good sometimes.

Apparently you've just agreed that "run and carry is good sometimes"

Apparently that's what you've said all along.

But you don't actually want us to do it.

Huh?!? That must be some version of "common sense" that I am unfamiliar with.

I do hope that they find a "balance between kicking and handballing".

Moreover, instead of trying to use a "run and carry" tactic, a "kick it long tactic" or whatever it may be, players are instructed to play "football". Meaning that they utilise all the skills they have acquired over the years (in order to get to this elite level) and in turn use the most appropriate skill (i.e. kick, handball etc) in the most appropriate situations.

I'm not totally against the "run and carry" option and it can be very effective. But the impression I got was that Melbourne players were looking to run and carry all the time when a simple long kick was clearly the best option.

Use “run and carry” when it is the best option at that particular moment.

Use (for example) the “kick the f***ing thing” when that is the best option at that particular moment.

"Apparently" I did say that...

I don't want "run and carry" to become a key tactic, like it was in the Adelaide game and like it has been in the pre-season (as meaningless as these games are).

I have merely expressed my concern that IF it becomes a key tactic (i.e. their first option is to always handball and run instead of kicking) then Melbourne will struggle during the H&A season. I would prefer to see a long, fast direct approach as a key option.

The fact that "run and carry" has it's own name gives the "tactic" more credit than it deserves. ND hasn't re-invented the wheel here with the notion of running with the ball and I have never been against it as an option, when it is the best option at a particular point in time.

Yes I would. I'd take possession in your 32 man forward 50, run and carry because I outnumber you thru the midfield, kick to my FF one-out in the 50 if your defenders come to meet me or run to 50 and kick over their heads at goal if they don't - just as you described.

I would much prefer to be in a 15 on 17 situation in my own forward line than in a 1 on 3. Especially with the likes of Davey, Bruce, Pickett, Bate and Green down there.

You're tactic sounds awfully tiring as well, what with all that running from end to end.

Be careful not to run "out of legs".

[old55 23,687]

"Apparently" I did say that...

I have merely expressed my concern that IF it becomes a key tactic (i.e. their first option is to always handball and run instead of kicking) then Melbourne will struggle during the H&A season. I would prefer to see a long, fast direct approach as a key option.

ND hasn't re-invented the wheel here with the notion of running with the ball and I have never been against it as an option, when it is the best option at a particular point in time.

You're tactic sounds awfully tiring as well, what with all that running from end to end.

Be careful not to run "out of legs".

No-one except you said "always" handball - kick long when there's a free target.

No-one said ND invented run and carry, he's just adapting it as a tool.

Yes it's tiring and that's why we've been working on our running with Babba - and why Nathan Jones, for example, changed his body shape.

We're going to use run and carry as a tactic at the appropriate time.

We're going to kick it at the appropriate time.

We're used to kicking it but we're not used to run and carry so we're practicising that now when it's safe to do so..

What is your problem?

[deeangel 2]

ND was on SEN this morning and explained that the handball(run and carry) scenario will be used against teams flooding to prevent us bombing it in to a crowded forward line. Once they get to the 50m arc then we can kick it over their heads. As said in the press they know it needs some correction to avoid over use.

[demonfanjezza 1]

ND was on SEN this morning and explained that the handball(run and carry) scenario will be used against teams flooding to prevent us bombing it in to a crowded forward line. Once they get to the 50m arc then we can kick it over their heads. As said in the press they know it needs some correction to avoid over use.

That is a very good explaination of how the run and carry play will be used.

[CarnTheDees 52]

I'll be happy if we have 17-15 in your forward 50 and my FF against your 3 defenders in mine.

You are dreaming.

[CarnTheDees 52]

There is a point that needs to be made here:

Creating a tactic called "run and carry" implies almost total reliance on the skills of running and handballing.

This is my concern. Implementation of this tactic to me implies that the players are told to look for a handball first. I have no problem with a player handballing, or even a chain of handballs, as long as it moves the ball towards our goals in a relatively speedy fashion. What I do have a problem with is ND and Co expecting us to be able to move the ball forward rapidly and consistently through a crowded midfield via this fashion.

The only way I can see this strategy working is if you have the fittest and fastest side in the league, and they are sublimely skilled by hand. We are neither.

For me, r&c is what would have been referred to years ago as "overuse of the football". (as in: Melbourne were beaten today because they overused the football)

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

For me, r&c is what would have been referred to years ago as "overuse of the football". (as in: Melbourne were beaten today because they overused the football)

I've always thought overuse was a product of pressure, rather than a game plan. Which coach tells his players, "right guys, today I want you to chip it around and handball and go backwards and sideways and make mistakes overusing the ball"?

Teams get caught out overusing the ball because of the other team's pressure. They have less time with the ball, panic and make mistakes. They don't have room to get a kick so they handball. They lose confidence and don't want to take risks and make mistakes so they go backwards or sideways to a safe option.

You always hear commentators criticising teams for overuse of the footy and then saying that when they do go direct, they usually win. It's a bit of chicken and egg. Intense pressure forces overuse.

[old55 23,687]

There is a point that needs to be made here:

Creating a tactic called "run and carry" implies almost total reliance on the skills of running and handballing.

This is my concern. Implementation of this tactic to me implies that the players are told to look for a handball first. I have no problem with a player handballing, or even a chain of handballs, as long as it moves the ball towards our goals in a relatively speedy fashion. What I do have a problem with is ND and Co expecting us to be able to move the ball forward rapidly and consistently through a crowded midfield via this fashion.

The only way I can see this strategy working is if you have the fittest and fastest side in the league, and they are sublimely skilled by hand. We are neither.

For me, r&c is what would have been referred to years ago as "overuse of the football". (as in: Melbourne were beaten today because they overused the football)

You and Pedro seem to believe we are going exclusively "run and carry", every game all the time. That's not the message I'm getting.

We need to do something to improve our results at AAMI and Subi.

The Crows put 2 extra players back to start the match. ND instructs the team to run and carry so we don't kick to an outnumbered contest. We kick 3 or 4 goals ahead using this tactic, then Neil Craig has to decide whether to persist and hope that we'll tire or release his two extra backmen. If he does the former we can use our increased running capacity specifically built up over summer to complement the plan and play tempo footy at times in the 2nd half if we need to maintain our 3-4 goal break. If he releases his extra backmen then we can kick longer to a less crowded forward line. We've got three options up our sleeve which we can use pro-actively.

If we don't kick ahead trying this tactic what have we lost? In previous years all we've been doing is get beaten there - how can it get worse?

Here's my position:

- ND is coach for 2007

- He's done a good job, 6/9 years in finals, last 3 years in finals, top finishing Vic team last year

- He's trying something new to overcome the final hurdle we have against 3 of last year's top 4

- He knows 10 times more about footy, spends 10 times more time working on it and has 10 times more invested in our success than me or you

- I'm behind him and the team in 2007

How about you?

[drdrake 3,187]

I watched two other teams Geelong and Brisbane last night in the first game I've seen this season, I hope our run and carry will be better than what I saw last night, even though I couldn't care less who won I was frustrated watching this game style that was poorly executed. If you turn the ball over playing this style it is going to hurt you more than kicking the ball 50m to a contest.

[CarnTheDees 52]

Here's my position:

- ND is coach for 2007

- He's done a good job, 6/9 years in finals, last 3 years in finals, top finishing Vic team last year

- He's trying something new to overcome the final hurdle we have against 3 of last year's top 4

- He knows 10 times more about footy, spends 10 times more time working on it and has 10 times more invested in our success than me or you

- I'm behind him and the team in 2007

How about you?

Thats a fair summary of where I'm at too.

Just because I criticise him doesn't mean I don't support him. I have an opinion and I express it. I'm not going to change it to suit the aristocrats of Demonland. I don't enjoy watching the dees play tempo footy, and my 1/10th of his knowledge about the game suggests to me that we will not be successful with it (especially with the makeup of the current list). I have no problems with ND trying new things in order to achieve the ultimate success, however my ideologies about the game of football don't agree with the methods that he has used.

If you read my topic "The CHF Debate" you will see that i'm very impressed with ND's overall management of the MFC in recent years. From my vantage point high in the Northern stand most weekends I don't believe that his match-day nous will win us a flag, but I would be delighted if he remained with MFC in a football operations type role for an extended period.

[Slartibartfast 17,625]

I don't believe that his match-day nous

I have a theory about match day nous. If you win your coach has it and we lose he doesn't.

That's a simplification but a major part of the story.

I'm the first to admit that I don't understand football tactics that well. Never have. But I remember watching some Wiz cup matches where Dean Laidley was "miked up". I'd not considered the things he was suggesting. It wasn't just moving players and rotations. It was so much more. So when people say that Daniher doesn't have it and Eade does, I wonder how they judge.

Anyway. CTD how do you think "run and carry" will affect the importance of CHF? My gut feeling is that it makes the importance of a CHF much less as there will be a tendency to run the ball forward of centre and kick deep into the forward line.

[CarnTheDees 52]

Anyway. CTD how do you think "run and carry" will affect the importance of CHF? My gut feeling is that it makes the importance of a CHF much less as there will be a tendency to run the ball forward of centre and kick deep into the forward line.

Agree, however I'm not sure that our midfield is up to the standard required to pull it off against the best opposition. Supposedly it came in vogue after that match when WC went handball-happy and won against Adelaide, but they had the best midfield in the league and probably for the last 10 years, if not ever.

Secondly, I'm not sure that r&c will see a lot of deep kicking into F50. Because it is a tactic used to counter flooding/extra defenders, I would have thought it would be used more to work the ball to around 60 out from goal, then pinpoint a free man 40-50 out.

I think in general the speed of the game, and improved footskills has somewhat negated the dominance of a power CHF, and WC have shown that you can win a flag without one, (Hansen doesn't count, and Lynch played more FF) with their above-mentioned midfield using their running capacity and sublime footskills to target free smaller types of forwards or kick goals themselves.

Put it this way: It is possible to win a flag without a key CHF, but based around the rest of our side, I think we'll need someone to stand up and offer more than we're currently getting if we're ever to win one.

[old55 23,687]

Thats a fair summary of where I'm at too.

Just because I criticise him doesn't mean I don't support him. I have an opinion and I express it. I'm not going to change it to suit the aristocrats of Demonland. I don't enjoy watching the dees play tempo footy, and my 1/10th of his knowledge about the game suggests to me that we will not be successful with it (especially with the makeup of the current list). I have no problems with ND trying new things in order to achieve the ultimate success, however my ideologies about the game of football don't agree with the methods that he has used.

If you read my topic "The CHF Debate" you will see that i'm very impressed with ND's overall management of the MFC in recent years. From my vantage point high in the Northern stand most weekends I don't believe that his match-day nous will win us a flag, but I would be delighted if he remained with MFC in a football operations type role for an extended period.

ND (and I) have explained how using r&c, tempo footy and kicking to free targets can be used efffectively - it's easy to criticise.

What are your "ideologies about the game of football"? How are we going to win at AAMI and Subi by following your them? Who else has won there using them? Please note that you have to do it with the current list.

I hoping for something more than Pedro's "kick it in long and fast to a leading forward". I'm pretty sure I countered that (and Neil Craig did too) by starting an extra two back.