Okay, so a little debate topic I wanted to post in this thread too, RE our stoppage clearance numbers (our centre clearance numbers are decent).

I think we may have to tweak our approach to stoppage clearances to tighten up scores against clearance.

I believe in our quest to score (both on slingshot from D50 and inside our A50), we leave too much space around the contest for teams to chain out of when we lose clearance. Of course, it works the other way around too, but I think our ability to defend D50 is more important than slingshot.

If I'm right, maybe it's a case of clogging up D50 at stoppages and sacrificing an easier slingshot/handball chain out of our D50, but keeping the space in the A50 at stoppages, and back our defensive system to stop teams scoring when they chain out of our A50.

What do others think?

3 minutes ago, A F said:

Okay, so a little debate topic I wanted to post in this thread too, RE our stoppage clearance numbers (our centre clearance numbers are decent).

I think we may have to tweak our approach to stoppage clearances to tighten up scores against clearance.

I believe in our quest to score (both on slingshot from D50 and inside our A50), we leave too much space around the contest for teams to chain out of when we lose clearance. Of course, it works the other way around too, but I think our ability to defend D50 is more important than slingshot.

If I'm right, maybe it's a case of clogging up D50 at stoppages and sacrificing an easier slingshot/handball chain out of our D50, but keeping the space in the A50 at stoppages, and back our defensive system to stop teams scoring when they chain out of our A50.

What do others think?

@A F I'd like to see us adjusting this set up as part of better implementation of tempo footy and in response to our on field structures.

If the backline is working, it's intercepting and looks comfortable, if we have the match ups right (no. of talls, etc.) then the attacking option is good.

But in games that isn't always the case. Sometimes the back 6 has spent a few minutes under intense pressure. Perhaps the interchange and match ups put us at a weaker point. Perhaps the opposition have scored a couple in a row. In those cases, I'd really like to see us take a more defensive posture at the clearances, to take the pressure off and regroup.

I think we have tried to "fight through it" at times this year, but the pressure of the game (at that specific moment) combined with adding "pressure to score" has resulted in us being more fumbly.

We are at our best when we are able to play the game on our terms. We become devasting, making smart decisions, and using the ball well. When confidence is up they back themselves in. So I think we need to find a better way to control the game tempo, to wrestle back control, and get the confidence up again.

I dont think anyone has taken into account that other Teams have Improved with Skilfull Players we havent the number of times we take the wrong options no talking when contesting notibly Forward 4 examples ANBx2  Harmes x1 Spargox1 missed certain goals they are fixable ANB gets found out Harmes has no confidence and Spargo is too quick thinking for his Mates also Van Royen leave him at CHB he the only Forward that can Turn apart from Fritch 

Backline Lever is having a horror Season needs to be a floater and find a CHB this will go a long way to balance their Strenghts the other problem is Tackling an the Backline.

My Solution Drop Harmes ANB Mc Donald and bring in Pace and Skills Hunter Laurie  Thomlonson play Rivers on ball and Brawshaw back to Half Forward 

Lastly change the Gameplan to an more Franatic style and confuse our opponents i bet this will work

 

2 hours ago, A F said:

Okay, so a little debate topic I wanted to post in this thread too, RE our stoppage clearance numbers (our centre clearance numbers are decent).

I think we may have to tweak our approach to stoppage clearances to tighten up scores against clearance.

I believe in our quest to score (both on slingshot from D50 and inside our A50), we leave too much space around the contest for teams to chain out of when we lose clearance. Of course, it works the other way around too, but I think our ability to defend D50 is more important than slingshot.

If I'm right, maybe it's a case of clogging up D50 at stoppages and sacrificing an easier slingshot/handball chain out of our D50, but keeping the space in the A50 at stoppages, and back our defensive system to stop teams scoring when they chain out of our A50.

What do others think?

I think we’ve gone too far with the post stoppage focus. By trying to turn Oliver and Trac into more ‘complete’ players we have taken away their greatest strength.

They are phenomenal in 1 on 1 or even 1 on 2 scenarios at winning the ball and then releasing (Clarry) or bursting away (Trac).

I saw multiple examples on the weekend where Petracca was standing by himself at general stoppages, it’s an all or nothing play.

In the example, he doesn’t need to outmuscle anyone because if the ball doesn’t land in his lap, the damage is already done and he’s chasing tail.

I realise this is probably focusing too acutely on one aspect of a greater situation but I’d like to shift the focus back to winning clearances a little more.

 

Edited May 29, 20231 yr by BW511

Great point about tempo and this rightly being moment-dependent @deanox. 

If we adjust our structures more defensively in D50 when momentum is against us, it might take the pressure off our feeling that scoring could be generated at any moment, and lessen the fumbles. Who knows...

Edited May 29, 20231 yr by A F

1 hour ago, BW511 said:

I think we’ve gone too far with the post stoppage focus. By trying to turn Oliver and Trac into more ‘complete’ players we have taken away their greatest strength.

They are phenomenal in 1 on 1 or even 1 on 2 scenarios at winning the ball and then releasing (Clarry) or bursting away (Trac).

I saw multiple examples on the weekend where Petracca was standing by himself at general stoppages, it’s an all or nothing play.

In the example, he doesn’t need to outmuscle anyone because if the ball doesn’t land in his lap, the damage is already done and he’s chasing tail.

I realise this is probably focusing too acutely on one aspect of a greater situation but I’d like to shift the focus back to winning clearances a little more.

 

This seems a potentially fair criticism.

From a teaching perspective, it would make sense to release the shackles in the second half of the year after making strides with intercept game.

It means that if Clarry or Trac is being tagged, they can throw the tag by still contributing with intercept and defence. Trac obviously has the ability to go forward too to break that tag.

Just now, A F said:

This seems a potentially fair criticism.

From a teaching perspective, it would make sense to release the shackles in the second half of the year after making strides with intercept game.

It means that if Clarry or Trac is being tagged, they can throw the tag by still contributing with intercept and defence. Trac obviously has the ability to go forward too to break that tag.

Agree, can see the purpose of it and hope it  pans out

3 hours ago, BW511 said:

I think we’ve gone too far with the post stoppage focus.

I agree. It worked great in 2017-2021 but things have moved on. Teams have adapted. I really dislike -1 or -2 at stoppages.

Collingwood in particular are sometimes pushing +2 to stoppages.  Watch what they are doing as you will find they don’t dump kick out of clearances and are using the extra numbers to get spread, space and kicking to advantage rendering the +1 behind the ball redundant. Their forwards are going pretty well despite being on paper a mediocre group and often outnumbered, but Collingwoods run from stoppage and turnover is creating chaos that helps the forwards.

I’d like to see us keep even numbers or +1 stoppages, even when Clarry returns.  If we want to win post clearance possessions then we should back Tracc, Clarry etc to win good clearance quality and kick to advantage. We should also back our defenders to intercept when we lose clearance.  Our defenders have the best 1 on 1 percentage in the league so we really don’t need a spare.  Better to keep the pressure upfield as high as possible.

And our f50 pressure needs to go back to 2021 levels. Remember when we would make sure there were no easy kicks in our f50 and Kossie was a menace.  We have just given up on that in the last year.

Its not too much to ask is it?

 

If we go back to the practice match V Richmond and look at the difference to know. We played on, we switched angles, we got to the top of the square, our smalls were great. I say we go back to that. 

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

If we go back to the practice match V Richmond and look at the difference to know. We played on, we switched angles, we got to the top of the square, our smalls were great. I say we go back to that. 

Where did that go ???

Seriously.. was breath of fresh air footy..  it flowed,  players connected,...overlaps...you know ....all the good stuff !!! 

And here we are...crudsville... 

Coaching gone Stale for 500 .... 

25 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Where did that go ???

Seriously.. was breath of fresh air footy..  it flowed,  players connected,...overlaps...you know ....all the good stuff !!! 

And here we are...crudsville... 

Coaching gone Stale for 500 .... 

it’s there, confidence is all that’s missing, a few wins and off we go

So that great practice match gamestyle and form against Richmond.

Do we think we are trying to play that now, but being forced through opposition playstyle and pressure to do something different?

Or do we think maybe we are trying different things tactically on match day?

 

In terms of team selection, we were playing 3 talls down back. And TMac and Brown were out forward talls (with Fritsch injured).

If it's the former (opposition tactics and pressure)what do we need to change up?

If it's the later (our coaches trying things) it could be a combo of keeping our powder dry and experimenting with other set ups, positions, formations etc. so that we have practice when we need to switch things up (ie when we threw Petty forward against Brisbane in the semi, it looked threatening but we didn't have the team synergy with that set up, but this year we have lots of practice at it).

Personally I think it is more likely the later. Compounded with May/Lever injuries, Max injury, Ben Brown injuylry, Petty injury, now Oliver injury.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Where did that go ???

Seriously.. was breath of fresh air footy..  it flowed,  players connected,...overlaps...you know ....all the good stuff !!! 

And here we are...crudsville... 

Coaching gone Stale for 500 .... 

there was no oppo pressure. It was a glorified training run.

We did however seem to use it against Dogs and Swans , so it worked.

The contest structure is absolutely mind boggling but it’s Goodys way or the highway. Can’t see it changing anytime soon.

 

9 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Where did that go ???

Seriously.. was breath of fresh air footy..  it flowed,  players connected,...overlaps...you know ....all the good stuff !!! 

And here we are...crudsville... 

Coaching gone Stale for 500 .... 

Difference  is Goodwin is trying not to lose rather than the riskier trying to win

WE lose drive method and control of tempo as a result

The last 2 games have borne this out Look at the ladder based on Round11 last year to round 11 this year 

Shows exactly where the dees are ie nowhere

8 hours ago, deanox said:

So that great practice match gamestyle and form against Richmond.

Do we think we are trying to play that now, but being forced through opposition playstyle and pressure to do something different?

Or do we think maybe we are trying different things tactically on match day?

 

In terms of team selection, we were playing 3 talls down back. And TMac and Brown were out forward talls (with Fritsch injured).

If it's the former (opposition tactics and pressure)what do we need to change up?

If it's the later (our coaches trying things) it could be a combo of keeping our powder dry and experimenting with other set ups, positions, formations etc. so that we have practice when we need to switch things up (ie when we threw Petty forward against Brisbane in the semi, it looked threatening but we didn't have the team synergy with that set up, but this year we have lots of practice at it).

Personally I think it is more likely the later. Compounded with May/Lever injuries, Max injury, Ben Brown injuylry, Petty injury, now Oliver injury.

Tbh...

And its not said purely for any flippance points....  i truly struggle to see any coherent strategy or style to our footy presently.  Im not sure you could get amore disjointed ineffective effort if you tried.

Its a bit like watching someone trying to assemble IKEA but using the instructions from 3 other different items. 

56 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Tbh...

And its not said purely for any flippance points....  i truly struggle to see any coherent strategy or style to our footy presently.  Im not sure you could get amore disjointed ineffective effort if you tried.

Its a bit like watching someone trying to assemble IKEA but using the instructions from 3 other different items. 

And yet we are the highest scoring team in the competition, and have the fourth best defence.

The actually results don't reflect a team with no strategy and ineffective effort do they?

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

And yet we are the highest scoring team in the competition, and have the fourth best defence.

The actually results don't reflect a team with no strategy and ineffective effort do they?

Many of those points accumulated bashing up rubbish opponents. 

Last two outtings of 11.10 and 10.12.

We went from not losing a 4th qtr.. to losing 2 straight.

Thats a derailment. 

Is the strategy to effectively shoot ourselves in the feet now ? 

 

Just now, beelzebub said:

Many of those points accumulated bashing up rubbish opponents. 

Last two outtings of 11.10 and 10.12.

We went from not losing a 4th qtr.. to losing 2 straight.

Thats a derailment. 

Is the strategy to effectively shoot ourselves in the feet now ? 

 

We won the last quarter against Freo and had we kicked straight would of win the game.

15 hours ago, A F said:

Great point about tempo and this rightly being moment-dependent @deanox. 

If we adjust our structures more defensively in D50 when momentum is against us, it might take the pressure off our feeling that scoring could be generated at any moment, and lessen the fumbles. Who knows...

Agree, there are times in the game where I feel we just need to hang on to possession for a bit. We're a bit on the manic side at the moment where the ball is always in motion and we get caught out of position a lot more on the counter. 

3 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

We won the last quarter against Freo and had we kicked straight would of win the game.

You're correct..   looked at scores wrong. Mea culpa

We've seemingly forgotten how to kick.

How many people over the eons have lamented...if we'd only kicked straight ??

It is a fundamental without doubt..

Had Port done so it would have been a drubbing ( was really.... )

Had Richmond... different story...

These are always the sliding doors results.

Reality is our kicking has dropped off...  very poor atm.  Frustration, confidence, fatigue ???   Ive no idea

We're playing raggedly...and getting ragged. 

Will need to improve markedly and quickly or we'll be the team that gets others back on track.

I really don't think the problem is that complicated. Historically our DNA is stoppage and contest, we have played predictably up the left wing for a number of years, counting on Gawn to mark or bring the ball to ground. We let the opposition make the ground small and congest it and count on our contest and defensive structure to either win it at the source or win it back on exit. Last year and now this year teams setup well to counter that, bringing extra numbers to the contest (they know exactly where it is going to be) and chaining the ball out via handball until they can get a controlled pass.

At the beginning of the year it looked like we had solved for that, mixing in less predictable exit strategies from the D50 and using lateral and 45 kicks to spread the ground and force teams to defend more of it. This opened up fast play opportunities and that is what gave us the scoring dominance. My gut feeling is that this play style is not yet fully embedded and under pressure we are reverting to what we know.

I suspect that our stoppage numbers are not actually the real problem. The problem is that we are making the ground too small and that means that teams can more easily bring extra numbers to the stoppage because even if they lose, they know where the ball is going.

Clearly there is a lot of supposition and opinion in the above, make of it what you will.

21 hours ago, A F said:

Okay, so a little debate topic I wanted to post in this thread too, RE our stoppage clearance numbers (our centre clearance numbers are decent).

I think we may have to tweak our approach to stoppage clearances to tighten up scores against clearance.

I believe in our quest to score (both on slingshot from D50 and inside our A50), we leave too much space around the contest for teams to chain out of when we lose clearance. Of course, it works the other way around too, but I think our ability to defend D50 is more important than slingshot.

If I'm right, maybe it's a case of clogging up D50 at stoppages and sacrificing an easier slingshot/handball chain out of our D50, but keeping the space in the A50 at stoppages, and back our defensive system to stop teams scoring when they chain out of our A50.

What do others think?

Nathan Buckley had an interesting observation re our stoppage structures On the Couch last night.  As you'd know, he viewed the game from the opposition coach's box on Saturday.

In essence he said that most teams play their wings as defensive sweepers, so there's cover if the opposition wins the footy and tries to forward exit the stoppage.  They're set up to provide defensive pressure as needs be.  Melbourne's wingers tend to play ''tight'' and don't provide that defensive cover.  This means that all our mids are basically off side if the opposition manage to break away from a stoppage.  They get cleaner entries while our mids are left chasing tail.

1 hour ago, Gator said:

Nathan Buckley had an interesting observation re our stoppage structures On the Couch last night.  As you'd know, he viewed the game from the opposition coach's box on Saturday.

In essence he said that most teams play their wings as defensive sweepers, so there's cover if the opposition wins the footy and tries to forward exit the stoppage.  They're set up to provide defensive pressure as needs be.  Melbourne's wingers tend to play ''tight'' and don't provide that defensive cover.  This means that all our mids are basically off side if the opposition manage to break away from a stoppage.  They get cleaner entries while our mids are left chasing tail.

The old bees to honey approach, where have I heard that before?

Edited May 30, 20231 yr by BW511

1 hour ago, Gator said:

Nathan Buckley had an interesting observation re our stoppage structures On the Couch last night.  As you'd know, he viewed the game from the opposition coach's box on Saturday.

In essence he said that most teams play their wings as defensive sweepers, so there's cover if the opposition wins the footy and tries to forward exit the stoppage.  They're set up to provide defensive pressure as needs be.  Melbourne's wingers tend to play ''tight'' and don't provide that defensive cover.  This means that all our mids are basically off side if the opposition manage to break away from a stoppage.  They get cleaner entries while our mids are left chasing tail.

What does he mean by "tight"? My view on our wingers is that we play wide, as in, we don't play sweepers as such (on most plays). Our wingers play 1v1 out the back of a stoppage, but say 15-20m off, rather than as that inside slider off the back of the contest (5-10m from the ball up) to handball receive or defend.

This is obviously a shift from Gus last year playing that sweeper role as a dummy defensive winger, and Salem/Bowey and Langdon playing it in 2021. 

"Tight" sounds like they are somehow goalside of the contest or very close to the stoppage as a sweeper?

Edited May 30, 20231 yr by A F

23 hours ago, A F said:

I think we may have to tweak our approach to stoppage clearances to tighten up scores against clearance.

I believe in our quest to score (both on slingshot from D50 and inside our A50), we leave too much space around the contest for teams to chain out of when we lose clearance. Of course, it works the other way around too, but I think our ability to defend D50 is more important than slingshot.

If I'm right, maybe it's a case of clogging up D50 at stoppages and sacrificing an easier slingshot/handball chain out of our D50, but keeping the space in the A50 at stoppages, and back our defensive system to stop teams scoring when they chain out of our A50.

What do others think?

There was a graphic on On the Couch that showed Melb as no 18 for D50 stoppage goals . If I read that correctly it shows that teams aren't bombing it on and are happy with short kicks or dirty balls into our D50. If they can score, great for them. If they can't then they force a stoppage with the likelihood of scoring based on the stat above being quite high. We are leaking a lot of goals this way.

It also means our strategy of scoring from turnover is under huge pressure as well.